Come anticipate David Fincher's "Zodiac"

Doesn't exactly apply, but close enough.

Locations Dept.

I don't doubt that this movie will be better, but it'll have as much to do with the actual Zodiac case as the Black Dahlia movie does.

(looking forward to this too!)

Damn straight. I nearly slashed the screen while I was watching the Black Dahlia. What a complete waste of time. :-(

it's amazing.
-- s1ocki, Thursday, 1 March 2007 04:04 (2 months ago) Link

qft

I have a question - when the cops are searching the main suspect's trailer, one of them (Anthony Edwards?) looks at something on floor by the bed. What was it? It looked like a dirty vibrator.

I think it was a container of model cement or glue, that the killer had said he used to disguise his fingerprints.

Loved this film. Loved it. I cannot remember when I have walked out of a cinema so enthused.

me too. not many non-americans seem to have made the trip.

DVD release in late July

this sits really well in my memory. cant wait to watch it again.

When I was in San Francisco I kept spotting things from the film. Fincher, for his faults, is excellent at creating a believable environment in his films.

still movie of the year.

Bugger me this film was boring.

do i give you the ass or the...oh, wait.

Def. the best 'mainstream' movie I've seen this year (Inland Empire was its own special thing) - the time lapse sequence of the building going up, accompanied by Marvin Gaye = cinematic bliss

Ed OTM

Sometimes it slips my mind that this movie came out this year, but yeah, it's probably my favorite. Well, that and Superbad which I saw in previews and hasn't come out yet and is a totally totally totally different kind of movie.

omg a character named Pepsi Cheyenne?!

hey, people who loved this movie: how much did y'all already know about the Zodiac before you saw the movie? I ask 'cause 1) I really like Fincher, but 2) I didn't love this movie - it looked great, for sure, and was well done, but I already knew all the stuff well enough and it didn't seem to really do much with it to me

I didn't know anything about the case really, apart from its being unsolved. I am familiar with almost all the locales in the movie tho (last scene takes place in Ontario Airport lolz)

j0hn i knew zippo.

but my appreciation of the film wasn't exactly... documentary.

the Ontario airport scene just kilt me 'cause that was my home airport for so long and they got it exactly right! the rest as I say was like a less intense version of the book

I want to see a movie of The Devil (in? and?) White City. ZODIAC book was great, I am fully stoked to see this movie. I still hart the Gyllenhal too.

It's good, and if it ends up the best studio film of the year, what an evermore sad world. (It's the ONLY one I've seen unless Idiocracy -- also ludicrously overpraised in some quarters -- counts.)

i knew nothing about the zodiac killer. it's not the point, it worked as drama.

this would be the best studio picture in most years, certainly since the '70s.

It was weird, I saw some "amazing killers" style show on TV a few weeks ago which included a short piece on the Zodiac, I had never heard of him before. And then I read about the film and it was fate.

still movie of the year.

-- s1ocki, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 16:35 (Yesterday) Link

the rest as I say was like a less intense version of the book

-- J0hn D., Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

i haven't read the book but i don't believe you

I knew a fair amount about the Zodiac (every SFer born in that period heard a bunch about those murders) but I never read the Graysmith book or anything.

My favorite complaint of the movie (I can't remember where I saw this) was that the overhead shot of Geary St right before the taxi cab killing was factually inaccurate because Geary didn't have a bus only lane in 1969 haha!

roflz

There was a Zodiac Killer flick released in 2005, starring Justin Chambers (Grey's Anatomy glowering intern bohunk as glowering drunk cop), Robin Tunney (his wife, mailing in her Drunk Cop's Wife role from the East Coast), & Kieran Culkin (son of Drunk Cop, doing some REAL investigative work). Except for the very last scene (where the actor playing the ZK reads from the last letter the ZK sent to the press, with only an artist's rendition of the ZK onscreen & no music in the background - very creepy & effective!), the flick's a pisspoor Son of Sam ripoff.

-- David R., Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:29 PM (4 months ago)

^^fuck i thought i was finally watching the fincher one but apparently its this one. that kid does look a lot like macaulay. anyway it wasn't very good

ANIMAL CRACKERS

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 (3 months ago) Bookmark Link

(finally saw this yesterday)

I think you meant that as a joke, but I thought that stuff really resonated! Especially after Graysmith's 4th or 5th time telling one of the detectives from the 'other' towns some major fact that has always been there but that they were never made aware of.

And that first major 'evidence' exchange:

"I'll send it to you, via the telefax machine."
"We don't have telefax yet."
"Okay, I'll stick it in the mail."

The mail! I mean, Fincher shot this movie straight to hard drive.

And yes, the Lake Berryessa sequence was the scariest murder scene I can think of, from any film. Just horrifying.

Willing to forgive some of the more on-the-nose lines/quirks (yes, "animal crackers"; see also Gyllenhaal going wide-eyed and saying "Not many people HAVE basements in California" during Cellar Roger Rabbit Herringfest); I haven't been this engrossed in anything in a long time.

it was just one of those films where i knew from the first shot i'd love it. i'm totally irrational about this stuff. also the music, it was funny, my college roommate played that kid loco album all the time so i recognized the first bar but had never heard the whole song...

the one by the lake was v scary but, when he first appeared in his zodiac killer costume, I laughed! it was just after the first (in the movie) murder and, for a second (or more), I thought it was going to be someone dressing up as a "zodiac killer" to scare the people, to shortcut robberies. actually, it was more than that...as he was talking to them and then tying them up, I was still thinking "is this actually the same guy??"

it's weird when you immediately misunderstand something. I mean, I do think it was supposed to be slightly comic, that he appeared in a black outfit w/ a big logo on his chest

the bit right at the start of the transformers trailer where the kid shouts "DAD! NO NO NO!" or something is v weird when you realise what is actually happening

it was supposed to be a bit comic, which made it even horrid-er. there is a bit of banter about the guy's qualifications or something?

oh, yeah, the girl is like "he can help you--he's a psychiatry major" or something

I've noticed zodiac watches in lots of shops, recently

oh man, this was amazing. from the very first shots: the fireworks were just so luscious and full of dread. the lake murder and the roadside abduction sequences were horrifying and great. i loved the red herring and the winking ridiculous basement spooks. oddly thought jake, chloe and downey were all so-so, but more than made up for by the amazing supporting cast and mark ruffalo's terrific performance. between this and Eternal Sunshine i think he might be one of my favourite actors. way more notes in his stuff than you'd think. has he done anything else i should see?

i loved fight club and liked Se7en (but too scary for me), but i think this is pretty obviously his best film. gripping and true-feeling: reminds me oddly of Good Night and Good Luck (both newsroom dramas?), but i liked so much more the way this made cinema out of a historical timeline, while still treading very lightly at the end.

watched it Friday night, it was ok.

there's a big ad at the beginning of the DVD about how the superduperfancypants director's cut 2cd bonanza will be out in 08.

jonesing already

has he done anything else i should see?

If you haven't seen "You Can Count On Me," you need to. Ruffalo is amazing in it.

looking forward to giving this a second viewing tonight

I enjoyed this film but I don't think I quite get why so many people think it is SO great.

well personally I found that after seeing it various elements of it kept coming back to me, and my associations with a lot of the locations in the film (SF, Lake Berryessa, Riverside, the Ontario airport) gave it some weird kind of resonance for me. I expect I'll have a more nuanced appraisal of it after seeing it again.

People getting their Kubrick on with the director of "Janie's Got A Gun"

I don't like acting much, usually. And Robert Downey Jr is the worst of them.

xpost

perhaps it underwhelms because, as this review maintains, the quality of the DVD transfer is "shameful"?

http://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/dvd_review.asp?ID=1178

But it could just be that the style and execution is quite good, and the material utterly Old News.

(that's for adam)

Yeah I guess it is what I would call a great rainy afteroon movie, and certainly there aren't enough of those. But I have this feeling that it only stands out (for me) because everything elwe is so terrible!

else

RD needs to show us a new, less prattly side soon.

Mark Ruffalo was using a reedy voice (not his usual one) that was reeeeallly familiar, but I can't figure out who he might have been imitating.

Haha I think it might have stood out for me because everything else by Fincher is so terrible!

"terrible" = not like a million overrated gritty cop shows of the last 25 years

lol well okay.

I read the (first/original) Graysmith book when I was a teenager, so I did sort of know how everything panned out beforehand. I may well have been more gripped if I knew less about the case.

I like gritty cop shows, Morbius! =)

But seriously I thought it was just fantastic. Great acting, great mood, great pacing. I admit that maybe it might have resonated more with me because the case was such a part of the undercurrent of the Bay Area when I was growing up, but it's still probably the best movie I've seen this year.

Alex OTM

Maybe this is why I like This Is England so much then! Not that it is set anywhere near where I am from or features people like those I grew up with, but it certainly draws from a larger culture that was all around me during my childhood.

Fincher decorates background walls with classic movie posters and includes a self-indicting, pre-opening credit visual clue (elucidated during the third act) that speaks to cinema's potent cultural impact,

wait what is this "clue" he's referring to here

S: Donal Logue
D: John Ennis

I don't like acting much, usually

What do you watch in movies -- costumes? wallpaper?

(although if you watch Jake Gylllie in this one you might hate acting too).

i just watched this just now

I don't know, a lot of "movie acting" has really got to me of late, basically the kind of acting you see in most studio films has suddenly begun to strike me as utterly ridiculous - that this is now how you now portray characters for a mainstream audience. I'm not just trying to be snobby about it (I hope) because there's lots of horrible acting in other types of movies.

Worst recent example I can think of - Little Children.

That movie was terrible though.

It was. Lots of things wrong with it. But the acting in it was (for me) kind of the final straw. Whenever I notice acting now it turns me right off.

Also if you though Robert Downey Jr was bad in this, don't see Fur! Actually don't see Fur period!

hahaaaa! I have NO plans to see Fur in this lifetime.

I don't know that I think RDJ is "bad", I think he probably always succeeds at what he is trying to do. I just don't particularly want to buy what he is selling.

(unless he has some really good shit)

On the other hand, I sort of like Mark Ruffalo despite his only-slightly-more-subtle but still ludicrously mannered performances.

And I know everyone thinks I am RONG and crazy anyway but just to show I'm not simply being contrarian - "acting" I have liked recently was definitely Daniel Auteil in Cache'. That was perfect, IMO. Almost invisible!

RDJ quite fine here; the only perf in recent years I couldn't stand was in the Linklater cartoon.

If you like "realistic," no-nonsense, leaden acting, you couldn't get better than Anthony Edwards here.

Yeah he was good. I didn't say LEADEN though, you did. =)

And I don't just like "realistic" acting. I thought Laura Dern was amazing in Inland Empire, I liked Alec Baldwin in the Departed. It's a really fine line, I admit.

I couldn't stand Edwards, actually.

really? that's funny!

I didn't have a problem with any of the actors actually. Inland Empire (Laura Dern's acting chops aside) was nearly unwatchable OTOH.

Of course part of the reaosn why I didn't, was it didn't matter was on screen cuz Fincher treated them like they were wallpaper anyway.

It's funny how quickly Zodiac's become Fincher Film #3 or #4 about which everyone will be evenly split on its merit.

Edwards did a fine reprise of Goose here.

x-post I don't think anti-Fincher people have the same animosity to this that they did with Fight Club and Seven, in part because "Hurdy Gurdy Man" aside he avoided his more obvious indulgences. It's not even ANTI-Fincher, just varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Really haunting film – I think of it as Rashomon for the CSI-watching pathology/forensic-obsessed generation.

Who the killer is the least of your problems, it's the inability to know anything to a certainty.

I was never a fan of Fincher until this film

I really don't have much of an opinion either way about David Fincher and wasn't really hyper-aware of this being "a David Fincher film" while I was watching it.

D: John Ennis

Are you MAD?!?!

I was aware of him but didn't really care one way or the other - altho I actively disliked Fight Club and Se7en seemed like some sub-par Vertigo graphic novel type crap (you call that a "twist" ending? wtf)

also yeah I loved John Ennis' two scenes in this

"It's funny how quickly Zodiac's become Fincher Film #3 or #4 about which everyone will be evenly split on its merit."

Hah but the funny thing is how many people who liked Zodiac HATED his other films!

John Ennis was the 2nd handwriting expert, right?

which is my point!

(xpost)

Hey, admrl: Philip Baker Hall gives his usual tip-top performance.

I like Philip Baker Hall

weird - Philip Baker Hall was in the shitty 2005 Zodiac film as well (albeit as a different character)

I just a clip in which Graysmith talks about the killer. Man, he's about as noble, sincere, and dull as Gyllenhaal made him out to be.

http://www.adweek.com/adweek/photos/2006/03/31_CR_News_Subway.jpg
ACTING!

this really holds up well - the third act seems very distinct from what comes before and more clearly delineates the central themes of the movie. Up to that point it all feels like fairly standard crime thriller stuff, but when it moves on to Graysmith its clear that all he's doing is fumbling around in the dark, and that the "truth" of the killer's identity has become just a backdrop, and one hopelessly obscured at that, for all these other issues - media fascination, the morbidly obsessed, etc. - to play out against.

Also on second viewing the bit in the house with the movie poster guy - I got the definite sense that this wasn't just a blind alley, it was Graysmith brushing up against a fellow Zodiac-obsessive, someone who has likewise followed the details of the case and perhaps even participated in its obfuscation (much as Graysmith unwittingly had)... the stuff Vaughn knows and says in some ways imply that he may have written Zodiac letters himself or made false calls, etc...?

The whole scene makes Graysmith's reaction of fear/horror even more of an ironic comment on just how deluded he was about his role and his unrealistic expectations of being able to solve the case.

that scene, in the basement, is the one i'm most iffy about, the one i want to see again, but also one that makes me want to read the book to see what the deal was there.

it's classic horror/serial killer-movie stuff, and i'm not sure if that's meant to reflect graysmith's being delusional at this point... or if it's a cheap moment in an increasingly actionless film...

it's classic horror/serial killer-movie stuff, and i'm not sure if that's meant to reflect graysmith's being delusional at this point...

I think it's both - the fact that the entire scene is constructed as a classic "reveal" horror-movie scene, and revolves around films/movie posters/a projectionist (cf. pyschological "projection" haha geddit), and that the "lead" comes out of nowhere and is completely unrelated to all the evidence previously discussed in the film all point to it being a reflection of Graysmith's addled state. Also take into account that up to now this character has never been mentioned and bears no direct relation to the crime. Yet the fact that he knows all these details about the case and is happy to play along with Graysmith's amateur detective routine would indicate he's just a similar obsessive, someone who loves the DRAMA and attention of the whole affair. Graysmith is the same way, but he doesn't want to admit it to himself, instead pretending like he's some knight-in-shining-logical-armor who's gonna solve this thing cuz its "important"...

I was irritated by this scene the first time around. The second time around it struck me as a very genius move, lots of layers to it.

Loved that scene – both genuinely scary and hysterical.

its one of those scenes that emphasizes how the movie is NOT about solving a crime - its about how trying to solve a crime magnifies and distorts the crime itself, as well as those attempting to solve it

Yeah, by the end of the film Graysmith is totally leading the witnesses

which also made me re-think the film's "conclusion" that Allen is the Zodiac - its kind of a joke ending to "convict" him on film after spending the last 2 1/2 hours laying out precisely how untrustworthy media interpretations of events are (and of course in real life Allen was exonerated repeatedly based on hard evidence)

it's catharsis for graysmith (and the guy who was almost murdered). i await fincher's dir cut to see if he keeps the end '10 years later' cards.

that scene is great!

the funny thing (well, one of many funny things) is that even just going by the "evidence" laid out in the film, Graysmith gets his closure ("I have to look him in the eye, and KNOW it's him") without actually having any proof whatsoever.

x-post

he works up this convoluted interpretation that allows him to achieve catharsis without actually, y'know, achieving anything.

The fact that the film came down so squarely against Allen was to me its weakest point – I'm not sure why; maybe it's because the film seems to be showing you that some things are unanswerable, only to then suddenly provide an answer?

Whoops, sorry Shakey Mo, i just recapped what you said upthread

Just saw this, so I'm jumping in. The majority of the evidence implicates Allen, so the movie goes that way, but I disagree that it implicates him 'so squarely,' ie, more squarely than merited.

As for Allen being exonerated by 'hard evidence' - unfortunately, that evidence wasn't that hard. Good DNA evidence from a letter that numerous people have had their hands on over so many years? Not likely.

no handwriting match, no fingerprint match, cleared a polygraph test, no evidence linking him to the scenes of any of the crimes. That's pretty goddamned conclusive.

from wikipedia:

Allen had been cleared several times during the investigation of the murders and the simultaneous hunt for the killer. These included passing a polygraph test, clearing a fingerprint screening (from those left at the crime scene of the taxicab murder), clearing a handwriting test and, most recently in 2002, being ruled out by a DNA test conducted based on DNA collected from one of the stamps of the Zodiac letters. Searches of his residence also never revealed any conclusive evidence.

Anybody who believes Allen was the killer based on evidence presented in the movie is totally missing the film's central point.

that you should just get out there and have a good time.

Whether missing the central point or not, here's the thing:

No fingerprint match to anyone, on a fingerprint they weren't even sure wasn't a mistake by a cop touching something. Handwriting - I really don't know much about handwriting analysis, so can't comment. Polygraphs are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate - they are MOST DEFINITELY not conclusive. Very common misconception.

The evidence is NOT conclusive at all.

I think the message of the movie is that if you're going to have sex in a car in a park, do it fucking quick and don't dick around. Well, do dick around.
x

hahaha

No fingerprint match to anyone, on a fingerprint they weren't even sure wasn't a mistake by a cop touching something.

btw its very easy to rule out cop fingerprints - their fingerprints are all on file.

Well I'm just taking that from the film - that it could have been a bystander or someone else. Such doubt certainly does not lead me to christen it 'conclusive evidence.'

no handwriting match, no fingerprint match, cleared a polygraph test, no evidence linking him to the scenes of any of the crimes. That's pretty goddamned conclusive.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 9:01 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

that's conclusive *lack of evidence*, not proof he didn't do it. fortunately we live in nice places where you need positive proof people did a thing before you lock them up (or whatever you do to killers in the states), but there were reasons he became a suspect, and damn, that scene at the place where he worked was pretty freaky right?

If it was me I would have made him make me a key then I'd try to take him to lunch. Just to see if he'd crack.

I'm flabbergasted that people are honestly making assumptions about a person's guilt based on a movie whose entire theme is that media interpretations are inherently unreliable.

that's conclusive *lack of evidence*, not proof he didn't do it.

negative proofs are a logical impossibility (see Iraq/WMD arguments)

i so want to see this again, and even though i know i will buy the mega-mega all-extras fincher-cut version next year, i guess i have to buy it sans extras now. i mean the scene on RDJ's boat is kind of what it's all about, i think, now.

"do you have the files"
"i live on a *boat*"

xpost

lol shakey i was kidding, but the film was kinda based on real shit at the same time, i don't know that they made a whole lot up re. allen.

negative proofs are a logical impossibility (see Iraq/WMD arguments)

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 9:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

not really. this is why murder suspects have to produce alibis and whatnot.

But I think people are simply assessing the available evidence - within the world of the film, of course - and coming to a reasoned conclusion. Based on that and reasoning through it, it's clear that he was deservedly the number one suspect. You're argument about 'the media' applies in that the movie does not contain other important information that one would need in assessing the case overall.

"do you have the files"

haha see pre-credits note at beginning of film "this film is based on actual case files". There are so many FLASHING WARNING SIGNS in the film that say DO NOT TRUST THIS FILM

x-post

you guys should really watch this again - and read that Slate piece. (for ex. its telling that the very first scene right after the first murder is of evidence being mishandled by the press)

(er, Slant)

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/zodiac/river_1.html

pretty informative about the real-life case for anyone curious..

But Shakey haven't you turned from a discussion of whether the hard evidence is conclusive to a discussion of a main theme within the movie, which are separate things? In other words I don't think that us disagreeing on the conclusiveness of a polygraph test has anything to do with my ability to grasp a main theme of the movie.

I dunno - you're the one who keeps bringing up evidence as its presented in the movie, note me.

(er NOT me)

I mean if it isn't clear, the movie does NOT present hard evidence of any kind, and repeatedly draws attention to this fact.

Latebloomer I'm having a read of that site - it's very interesting.

Ebert's review is up.

so if they ever re-make columbo, mark ruffalo is a shoe-in!!!

this looked really good but i couldn't understand what anyone was saying. i spent the whole thing going "what was that?" "what he he just say there?" and re-winding it to try and catch the bits i missed and still not hearing them.

"Fincher decorates background walls with classic movie posters and includes a self-indicting, pre-opening credit visual clue (elucidated during the third act) that speaks to cinema's potent cultural impact,

wait what is this "clue" he's referring to here

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:22 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link"

i'm not sure but there is an unusual close-up shot of some geese just after the discovery of the first bodies.

anyway, i didn't understand this film.

yea i watched the movie with subtitles. it was a big help. i sometimes do that with movies with tons of tiny little details that i need to keep track of, e.g. syriana. something about reading it, visually understanding it makes it stick a little better.

clue = "based on actual case files" text that precedes the opening credit sequence (joke being that later in the film the "actual case files" are referred to as lost/destroyed)

anyway, i didn't understand this film.

-- jed_, Monday, October 1, 2007 1:34 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

ok i'll take the bait. what did you not understand

I got this from Netflix and it has been sitting in my living room for two weeks. I watched the first hour of it but was not able to concentrate (it wasn't the movie, though, I had a very hard time concentrating enough to even read a newspaper right after that).

watched this last week, struck me as very much a made-for-tv movie with some big stars. quite poor. ridiculous conclusions.

just as said s1ocki, i couldn't understand what was happening because i couldn't understand what anyone was saying.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ePYxO-KgXT4

oops wrong thread hahahahahaha

Director's Cut on the way too. That's a bit sudden i find.

not these days

i'm holding out for the supa-dupa multi-disc edition with the director's cut etc, though i hope it has both versions on it.

which is WAY more defensible for a film like this than for, say, 'blade runner' or 'apocalypse now redux'. i think "fincher's dvd cut" has been a possibility since before the film even came out in cinemas. 'blade runner' dircut was an afterthought.

best use of a pop song i've ever seen in a film. not that i ever listened to HURDY GURDY MAN much but i certainly won't ever again in my life be able to hear it without wanting a stiff drink.

we did a thread once about best uses of pop songs in films. can't find it mind.

this is driving me crazy, but wasn't butthole surfers' version of Hurdy Gurdy Man notably used in recent years in some indie movie about a creepy teenager or something?

Zodiac was the best movie I have seen in ages.

will we get to see the 3 minute black-screen music montage sequence on this ere director's cut dvd? hope so. only 6 minutes of extra footage on it in total by all accounts.

'L.I.E.' it's used in Yerac. So Sight and Sound says.

will we get to see the 3 minute black-screen music montage sequence on this ere director's cut dvd? hope so. only 6 minutes of extra footage on it in total by all accounts.

-- pisces, Monday, October 29, 2007 3:06 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

ere's 'oping. where have you seen its only 6 minutes?

my bad. it's *four* minutes:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6662&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=zodiac&start=0
____________________________________________

The 2-disc set will feature a version of the film that's 162 minutes long (for the record, that's 4 minutes longer than the theatrical version). Extras will include audio commentary by director David Fincher, a second commentary by Jake Gyllenhall, Robert Downey Jr., producer Brad Fischer, James Vanderbilt and James Ellroy, 3 The Film featurettes (Zødiac Deciphered, The Visual Effects of Zødiac and Digital Workflow), 3 Sequence Breakdowns (Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryessa and San Francisco), 5 The Facts featurettes (This is the Zødiac Speaking, Lake Herman Road, Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryessa and San Francisco), 4 Prime Suspect featurettes (His Name Was Arthur Leigh Allen, Linguistic Analysis, Jeopardy Surface: Geographic Profiling and The Psychology of Aggression: Behavioral Profiling), 2 text-based features (Special Agent Sharon Pagaling-Hagan's Behavioral Profile of the Zødiac and Dr. Kim Rossmo's Geographic Profile of the Zødiac) and the film's theatrical trailer. Audio will be Dolby Digital 5.1 on the DVD version, and Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 on the HD-DVD. All of the video-based special features will be in HD on the HD-DVD version

cheers. shit i am such a sap i might buy the theatrical as well as this. it's not necessarily about footage but about choices, right?

Really, really good, but I thought the Coke product placements were incredibly jarring. Did anyone else notice that?

not that i ever listened to HURDY GURDY MAN much but i certainly won't ever again in my life be able to hear it without wanting a stiff drink.

Having seen Donovan perform it last week, I feel the same way.

Yes- never thought I'd hear Donovan soundtracking brutal executions!

nobody else thought this was very made-for-TV stuff, with just better actors than normal?

i was very disappointed with how standard it was.

you're a dick.

oh the debating-school rhetoric.

The acting and tech quality is way above average, but yeah, the raw material is "pretentious cop show."

Mark Ruffalo's character was slightly Columbo-like, I thought. That's not a bad thing.

yeah he's meant to be. the actual guy was a media cop -- consultant on 'bullit', i think. that's part of the whole thing. i don't think morbius understands the film.

Yes- never thought I'd hear Donovan soundtracking brutal executions!

Lest We Forget

Starts @ 3:30 (On the the other hand, altough it is brutal, the actual execution is later on and Donovan-free)

nobody thinks that one guy was a bit disappointing? i'm constantly bemused at how standard his posts are.

Toschi was the role model for Bullitt and Dirty Harry - both films are directly referenced in Zodiac

which is key, as the central thrust of this movie is that movies distort and obscure reality

huh?

go back over all the film references in the movie, they're liberally littered throughout it and always used to point up how a desire for fame, or conventional film narrative, or desire to be a hero hopelessly obscure the facts and making solving the murders essentially impossible.

making = make

some ex. - Toschi's relation to the movie business, Melvin Belli on TV references his Star Trek appearance, the basement scene with the projectionist, the movie posters that decorate Graysmith's walls, Graysmith's referring to "The Most Dangerous Game" film, etc etc

The acting and tech quality is way above average, but yeah, the raw material is "pretentious cop show."

-- Dr Morbius, Friday, November 2, 2007 2:53 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

naturally, being 'about' a murder investigation, the material has a lot in common with cop shows about murder investigations.

but by pretentious i think you just mean it hits notes that cop shows often don't, and that's partly because of... the high quality of its acting and because of fincher's eye (and ear).

the raw material is something that actually happened! reality is pretentious.

cop shows are about reinforcing revenge/punishment fantasies (criminal always caught, etc.) Zodiac is all about deliberately violating this convention.

Critically respected cop shows (Bochco, The Shield) haven't been like this in awhile, have they?

I mean, like the reinforcement Shakey describes

the first three eps of 'homicide' were about a moidah that never gets solved, iirc.

xp

by raw material I basically meant the script.

thing is, i remember the movie making an emphasis of graysmith's disintegration but i remember much more concretely the climactic scene w/ him & arthur lee allen at the hardware store, & the pre-credits sum-up thing where it heavily implied that he'd 'caught' the killer, even if he wasnt brought to justice - i dont really think satisfaction for the audience was being subverted

that may very well be true Morbs - I've only seen one episode of the Shield, I can't stand that Chiklis guy. Homicide I've never seen. Bochco is... a strange case. Cop Rock was hilarious tho. Stuff I have seen (the wife likes to watch CSI, for ex.) still hew pretty closely to the humanized cop+revenge fantasy structure (also if you are not a cop on one of these shows, you are either a victim, deserving only pity, or a criminal, deserving only punishment. Cops tend to be strictly of the morally-conflicted-but-ultimately-upright-struggling-hero variety, which I find nauseating.)

honestly I try to avoid cop shows like the plague, police procedurals and cops in general tend to really irritate me.

x-post

i dont really think satisfaction for the audience was being subverted

see my comments upthread re: Graysmith's closure moment at the hardware store being ultimately empty and self-serving.

(altho that scene is GREAT)

also the pre-credit thing notes that Leigh Allen was exonerated by DNA evidence and never charged...?

i like tv cop shows, still think 'zodiac' is going for a different thing... partly because one of the main 'investigators' is not a cop but an obsessive, and the guy who cashes out is also not a cop.

if i were pitching i'd say "it's a movie about letting go". and i think it's really ambivalent about that -- it's also clear that needing to know is fucking these people up, even though, as RDJ says, people are dying every day. "why these particular murders?" is part of it.

RDJ comes to a kind of buddhist-nihilist conclusion; jakey decides, ah fuck it, it's this guy for definite.

^^^yep that's all in there

Late to the party...but still. Zodiac kind of lends itself somewhat to Homicide, and NYPD Blue in that you are shown more human failing, etc. It didn't feel stereotypical in any way though, except for the procedural aspect but you can't really have a story like that without the procedurals. I like Shakey's interpretation re the film references...I hadn't ever thought about it that way, mainly because a lot of those references are in the original Graysmith book, (ie The Most Dangerous Game etc)..but Shakey your view adds a little more to it. A good excuse to go back and watch - yippee!

Personally, as a closet true-crime nerd, I just enjoyed how well Fincher recreated the book...but also the fear that the Zodiac engendered...and I loved, loved, loved the details, San Francisco going through those time-period changes, the recreations of the Zodiac letters...I just geek out over that movie.

2-Disc Director's Cut (now featuring THAT music montage / black screen sequence): January 8, 2008.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/zodiac4.html

packaging is teh lolz

maybe now it'll turn a profit.

sike.

still movie of the year.

-- s1ocki, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 16:35 (Yesterday) Link

-- and what, Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:19 AM (6 months ago)

this was totally great.

interesting that the zodiac in the crime scenes was played by three different actors.

no shit! I love it

still movie of the year.

It's in my top 3 this year. I thought this film would have a lingering effect on me when I moved to SF last summer. Instead it's just creeped me out about Vallejo.

I'm giving this the number two slot in the high school paper! (number one = INLAND EMPIRE)

Man I had terrible taste when I did lists in my H.S. paper. I'm pretty sure senior year saw me praising Shine and Primal Fear.

more terrible, I mean.

My school offers an awesome film class...the teacher shows lots of great films (obvious gems like Kane, Sunset Blvd., Psycho + less expected ones like Run Lola Run, His Girl Friday, Go Tigers!)

Oh, yeah...This year's class watched Funny Games!

Wow, this is a high school class, right? Wish I'd gone there.

got the director's cut dvd. the cut's not much different at all, but the extras and commentary are worth it.

what a good movie....i own it but didn't finish, tho I saw it n the theatres...

How long was the theatrical cut anyway? In my mind, it's at least four hours, but I figure it was more like 2:30?

Kubrick mentions above (and in reviews) still seem very odd. Characters and their psychology/mindset are always central to Kubrick's films, where Fincher doesn't seem to hold much interest in them beyond moving the plot.

the hell? think we find out more about douglas in the game, norton in fight club, forster in panic room, ruffalo in zodiac, than we do about those guys in 2001 or full metal jacket.

Yeah I really don't think Kubrick did "psychology" very much.

One of the reasons I love him haha.

psycology is externalised in kubrick, possibly?

Kubrick's all primal psychology and no backstory.

What do we find out about Norton that isn't part of the 'surprise' and/or sloganeering?

slightly loaded question there milo! we learn he had an absent father, is a bit lonely, hates his job, can't think of anything he'd rather do, separates love from sex with a cleaver. more than you learn about the guys in '2001'. and of course psychology is externalized in fincher too, e.g. 'seven'.

We don't get any sense of him as an individual beyond what we're told, and what we're told is all about moving the story (or justifying the gag). It's all shallow and explicit, quirks to drive the plot (or justify the gag).

Where in Kubrick's films, there's much more abiguity to the characters and their motivation. You actually have to read into their words and actions.

zodiac is ALL about character

I don't see the Kubrick parallels either (perhaps a certain detachment pervades it, but that's certainly not unique to Kubrick.)

If anything I think Fincher's treatment of actors (like setpieces or as I said above wallpaper) has more in common with Hitchcock.

Curious question: does anyone actually think that Zodiac's characters were unambiguous? That everything was right on the surface? Because I gotta say if that's the case you must have watched a different movie than I did because I thought there was tons of ambiguity with all of these people (in fact that's Armand White's main complaint!) and the movie (to it's credit) doesn't try to neat explain it all away. It just let's it all play out and leaves the viewer to ponder the mystery and motivations of these people (and events). Which given the real life outcomes is exactly as it should be.

i've watched this like 4-5 times now and each time im more convinced it's great. profound, even (in the contrast between certainty and faith, and the necessity of the latter; monastic dedication; the threat of nihilism; and the simple transcendence of the final confrontation). at least that's my personal reaction to it.

best american movie of 2007, for me, easily.

Kent Jones wrote in the current Film Comment that it's his Movie of the Year -- and then complains at length that Gyllenhaal is unconvincing as an obsessive fact-monkey.

i never know what to make of claims about performances like that...

saw this again, always scared to see films i love a second time in case they don't live up. this one really did. it's awesome. the music montage was fun too. forgot how much rdj brought lols.

yeah, i never got the hate for his character on this thread.

saw for the fourth time last week, great as ever

i mean "rescreened"

and yeah rdj is great - character wouldve been killed by some bullshit hammy johnny depp acting but he really inhabits it

rdj is awesome!!

must get this director's cut editiony thing.

the aqua velvet scene never fails to bring lolz

'THIS... can no longer be ignored'

'hey bullitt, its been a year! you gonna catch this fuckin guy or not?'

the scene at the bullitt premiere gave me a movie boner.

it were DIRTY HARRY!

no oscar nominations AT ALL?? can we have a recount?

not anywhere as original as Fight Club, which got one nomination: Sound Effects Editing.

holy shit morbz

you are not allowed to have opinions about movies

No, he's right. Long and boring.

who the fuck are you?

no, it's good. But one just-good murder film is interchangeable with another.

http://i10.glitter-graphics.org/pub/1/1140r4teg1tiai.gif

all this time i just thought you were acting like a slow 17 yr old, i didnt know you actually were one

seconded

one just-good murder film is interchangeable with another

-- Morbius

Exactly. Which is to say boring at three hours, unless you have some specific interest in the case or detective stories in general. I don't.

Nice clothes, though.

this movie is not a "murder film"

i ... think ... i agree with morbius ... in spite of disliking fc

that was the corniest turd i evah passed

no, it's good. But one just-good murder film is interchangeable with another.

I thought that about No Country for Old Men more than this one, which had the historical/journo angles.

hamlet, clue, weekend and bernie's, all the same really

^KLASSIK SHIT^

Not if you want to pirouette around it with "limits of our knowledge" crap, Shakey, no.

shit tell me which murder films are like zodiac because i want to see them

otm

there's what, like 8, 9 minutes of actual murdering in this?

I don't get it. What was so great about it? Camerawork was really slick, but kinda distracting. Nice cinematography. Snappy color coordination on the set decoration, but it seemed overdone and (worse) meaningless to me. I gather we were supposed to see the main character being "consumed" by this insoluble case the way Downey was, but that didn't come through at all. Puppy dog hero seemed inward and obsessive from day one and Downey a predictable drug/booze casualty. Pat ending where the killer's identity is finally settled felt cheap: seriously undercut the film's most interesting themes. What's to love? Period detail? Painstaking re-creation?

^^^ ban

I'd say its genre is the procedural

Except for the parts that aren't. Like 50+% of it.

its genre is the procedural

Yeah, but w/ journalists instead of cops. If you allow a broad definition, with some context & character stuff that isn't related to the case at hand.

that's not really a genre, is it?

i don't think with stuff developed outside studio development departs by name-directors that 'genre' is that useful a category. sure in a way this is a "procedural detective film," but it's not in a genre in the way films were under the studio system, when they were done on a factory basis.

(this isn't to privilege fincher's MO, over, say, the system that produced the noir genre in the 1940s; i'm just saying.)

xpost

It's interesting that the movie that contenderizer is describing sounds virtually nothing like the one I watched.

Are you saying that the film wasn't about a character being consumed by an investigation, or that it didn't attempt to provide a solution to its own puzzle (killer's identity)?

Maybe. Not sure I'd agree about as much as 50%

I guess part of what makes it great to me is how it manages to investigate or even "deconstruct" (sorry) itself and its genre without sacrificing any pleasure. Its an extremely satisfying film.

Xposts

the movie that contenderizer is describing sounds virtually nothing like the one I watched

-- Alex

But, yeah, I get that a lot.

Ryan: How does it deconstruct the genre? How is it anything but what it seems on the surface?

I posted a bunch of stuff upthread about the movie's many references to media/film and the attendant distortions involved, which is really the primary focus of the movie (with the "message" being perhaps something like the harder you look for the truth the more you obscure it ... or something). There's a link that explores the same ideas upthread as well that was very illuminating in this respect. This movie is about obsession, and about how obsession is ultimately blinding and self-destructive.

and no the movie does not "solve" the killer's identity in any meaningful way. its no coincidence that the film appears to condemn a character that it explicitly states is innocent (the "this movie is based on actual case files" canard at the beginning, the text at the end about DNA evidence exoneration, etc.)

I would try to defend that statement but I'm typing on my phone here! Hopefully I can later...but I wouldn't be surprised if someone beat me to it.

The title and the code motifs are especially interesting I think for fancy ass readings of the movie

i love that the killer is played by different actors in each murder scene.

I think you're overstating the film's concluding text, Shakey. All that's said is that DNA could not match Allen to the letters. He was by no means exonerated by the DNA evidence. And I think the film comes very close to fingering him. Emotionally, at least, it gives our hero a moment where he can "look the killer the eye" and know that he knows. Which, given the realities of the case, is by far the most upbeat, standard-heroic conclusion possible.

I just didn't see the distortion-by-media angle as being explored in an interesting way by the film. Distortion by looking to hard for something that might not, in fact, be there, maybe. As far as revisionist detection goes, I think this pales next to OG 70s stuff like "The Conversation" and "Night Moves".

"I think you're overstating the film's concluding text, Shakey. All that's said is that DNA could not match Allen to the letters. He was by no means exonerated by the DNA evidence."

It's pretty far from slam dunk. Plus the ID itself is so suspect, so incredible seeming. Far from being conclusive OHMIGOD he did it, it's more OHMIGOD what an endless wild goose chase.

Fair enough. I don't want to beat this to death. It just left me a bit cold.

there are numerous other things in the film pointing to Allen's innocence - lack of match with the handwriting sample, etc.

x-post

I'll watch it again at some point. Too many people have insisted to me that it's better than I think. And maybe I'll come around.

shakey has inside knowledge

the film says he's "guilty" because Graysmith WANTS him so badly to be guilty - at the same time the film contains a number of elements implicitly stating that the film is not trustworthy (three different actors in the killing scenes, the note at the beginning and then the confession that the "actual case files" were destroyed, the constantly shifting evidence, etc.)

x-post

And I think the film comes very close to fingering him. Emotionally, at least, it gives our hero a moment where he can "look the killer the eye" and know that he knows.

haha i interpreted this totally differently!!

the scene in the basement is key, i think. as least as far as gyllenhaal's character goes.

^^^yes

that scene bothered me at first - because it seems so non-germane to the rest of the case - but then that's part of the point; its given this really creepy trad-horror-movie-surprise-reveal staging but then... nothing comes of it. Guy is just a harmless film buff. Graysmith is a totally paranoid obsessive who sees clues everywhere.

I get that. I could see that the movie was setting itself up as a gray-area exploration of our need to find solutions to unanswerable questions. And Graysmith hardly seemed entirely reliable. That's why I was so bugged by what I saw as the fairly straightforward solution offered at the conclusion. I'm not saying it was unambiguous, mind, but I though it was presented as something we might find at least 2/3 convincing. Not strong enought to hold up in court, but good enough to serve in the absence of verifiable truth.

Like I said, though, I need to watch it again.

That is, I accept that I may be wrong about this.

ive only seen it once but i will say that i didnt interpret the "fingering" scene as at all conclusive or final

there was fingering in this movie? talk about subtext!

sorry:(

<i>Not strong enought to hold up in court, but good enough to serve in the absence of verifiable truth.</i>

i think is IS what the movie is about..ie, the distinction between metaphysical certainty and we can indeed "know" (and what is problematic about our knowledge).

That Graysmith's moment at the end can be interpreted as either a transcendent confirmation of his suspicions or as the desperate grasping of an obsessive is to the film's credit...and what I like is that it suggests that these two things are not mutually exclusive...and may even depend upon each other!

this is basically the problem of modernity...how does one obtain certainty in situation that only permits probabilities? how do you reconcile this with any sense of justice?

that is, i dont quite accept that Graysmith is simply a delusional obsessive. there is, as the film puts it, about an 80% chance he is right...what you do with that figure is precisely the point.

I agree that the uncertainty generated by the film is the key thing

Ryan OTM. That's exactly how I saw the conclusion. And the 80% figure is key. I honestly don't think you ever do much better than that. Not with regard to the really difficult questions, anyway. So I didn't see this film's conclusion as particularly ambiguous.

boring pointless movie. looked nice though

today I was (yet again) pondering this movie and was struck by its thematic similarities to Alan Moore's "From Hell" - the serial killer thriving on attention, the collective panic, the essential unknowability of evil, that kind of thing.

ar0ng

^^

^

shakey--excellent! i was just about to start reading that.

one of the big differences is that with Moore its no mystery who the Ripper really is - the reader knows the killer's identity right off the bat. HOWEVER, there's an added ironic parallel to Zodiac in that Moore also very clearly says (somewhere in the appendices, I think) that he does not actually believe his fictionalized version of the Ripper's identity and motives is the truth. Moore's "Dance of the Gull-Catchers" epilogue super-relevant here as it traces all the various attempts to identify the Ripper anad how convoluted and impossible to untangle the whole thing became.

also am0n's not entirely wrong - this movie looked fantastic

and twat

;)

graysmith's book is good though. i'm probably too familiar with it to get anything worthwhile out of the movie

bet it won't be as good as the zodiac killer

-- am0n (am0n), Monday, November 20, 2006 8:28 PM (1 year ago)

^ i wuz RITE

is that movie ref'd in Zodiac...? I know Bullitt and Dirty Harry are

no but it gets mention in the book

Good call on From Hell and Zodiac parallels. There's also the occult and symbolist similarities to both murderers' MOs.

the director's edit dvd is still unavailable in the uk :(

Director's cut doesn't add much, really -- one scene of detectives outlining evidence to get a search warrant, and one with a black screen for about four (!) minutes while the passage of time is denoted via a radio/musical montage.

dude, your dvd is defective. the passage of time wasn't a blank screen, it was a scene of the zodiac dancing to the music in his sinister lair.

in silhouette of course

naked

jiggle jiggle

with his junk tucked away?

because if so I want my money back.

aha! 29 09 08 uk release for the 2 disc cut. no reason given as to why we get it a full year after everyone else but there we are.

watching this again right now. so good! the vertigo echoes strike me more this time through, including in the score (david shire being very herrmannesque). not that the story matches up, except in the setting and the obesessiveness. and the lighting -- lots of disconcerting west coast daylight.

Zodiac Killer's Identity Could be Revealed
Comments 1 | Recommend 2
August 29, 2008 - 11:41AM

He terrorized the San Francisco bay area and taunted police in the 60's and 70's.

The FBI has now confirmed to CBS13 in Sacramento they are running laboratory tests on some items that may link a suspect to the Zodiac Killer.

The evidence was given to the FBI by a Sacramento area man who also claims he recently found a disguise worn by the Zodiac Killer.

This is a man who believes he has a very personal connection to the zodiac...as

"The identity of the zodiac killer is Jack Torrance. He's my step father" said Dennis Kaufman. "Am I obsessed? No obligated."

Kaufman spent eight years attempting to prove the only father he's known since he was five years old is the Zodiac Killer.

His Handwriting samples are similar.

The composite sketch of the killer shares similarities with his step father's photo.

Kaufman believes the similarities are to strong to be coincidence.

Dennis also claims his step-father, in a taped phone conversation indirectly admitted being the Zodiac Killer.

"If I wrote a book and said I think my step father is the Zodiac Killer they wouldn't (expletive deleted) believe me," said Kaufman.

Tarrance died in 2006.

Kaufman claims going through his dead step fathers belonging that there were disturbing finds including a knife still covered with what could possibly be dried blood.

"It could be a knife he BBQ'd with or a knife he murdered someone with," said Kaufman.

Tarrance also left behind rolls of undeveloped film, Kaufman plans to hand over to the FBI.

The roll Kaufman did develop on his own appeared to show the images of people who were murdered.

Recently Kaufman remembered his step father asked him several times about an old P.A. system, which led him to take it apart.

"When I first opened it up that did affect me. My heart skipped a couple of beats when I saw it," said Kaufman.

The material folded and tucked inside he believes may unmask the Zodiac Killer. It was a black hood with a zodiac symbol on it.

In Lake Berryessa, 1968, a couple, Cecelia Shepard and Bryan Hartnell were stabbed.

Hartnell survived and said his attacker was wearing a black hood that fell to his waist and had the symbol of the zodiac on it.

"I was definitely in shock when i saw this," said Kaufman.

Dennis claims this is the hood worn during the vicious attack, a possible key piece of evidence connecting his step father to the killings.

He also believes there are dozens more victims, never linked to the Zodiac Killer.

Including Kaufman's own mother who he claims was suffocated.

"She sat there and told me Jack was trying to kill her and I didn't listen. I can only imagine how she felt. Imagine how scary that would be. That is what kept me going this whole time," Kaufman said.

There's a small voice in the back of my mind that always screams 'Nutjob!' whenever Kaufman shows up. Maybe it's totally valid...guy just sounds like he's Graysmith all over again.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/discus/messages/27/786.html

yeah i don't really think he knows shit but i'm curious to see what the fbi makes of the "evidence"

video interview here http://cbs13.com/crime/zodiac.killer.kaufman.2.805799.html

btw ive read the zodiac killer msg board in the wake of the flick & every single person who posts there is as nuts as this kaufmann guy, just posting that link as fyi

http://bizot.ch/photos/Image/jack-ths-shining.jpg

at first I thought this movie was okay but too long and probably not worth watching again but i've seen it again three times now in the past month and there's something new to look at each time. Visuals are great of course, but there's also how so subtly good Ruffalo is - I didn't notice the first time how much thought he put into his movement and mannerisms etc. it just sucks me in whenever it comes on, the whole tension and pace of it.

finally saw this, really good film and i hate fincher usually. seems like that is a common reaction upthread. one annoyance in this and other movies set in the 60s/70s is how inconsistent the actors look. jake did not for one second look "period" and downey's look was at least trying but pretty unconvincing. minor flaw tho as acting was good to great.

just got the 2 disc directors cut. omg moving the trees!!!

watched the bluray last night. GOD this is the best-looking movie of the last i dont know how many years. i wanted to eat it

downey's look was at least trying but pretty unconvincing

Downey at Riverside in the denim bellbottoms and floppy hat = teh awesome

also this movie made me really appreciate Mark Ruffalo - he's been in a bunch of crap but he's one of my favorite younger-ish actors

the vest!!

that rdj wore

i love the bullitt stuff... the dirty harry premiere

"yeah no need for due process eh guys?"

i voted for this in the ruffapoll - i thought he was perfect, just hit all the right notes imo~

ruff ryder

i didnt think it was that great lookin btw... i mean, maybe it is, i guess i'm not a big DV fan idk

it gave me an eye boner

Can't argue with bonarz.