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.
― VegemiteGrrrl, Saturday, 3 November 2007 05:57 (sixteen years ago) link
2-Disc Director's Cut (now featuring THAT music montage / black screen sequence): January 8, 2008.
http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/zodiac4.html
― pisces, Thursday, 6 December 2007 18:43 (sixteen years ago) link
packaging is teh lolz
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 6 December 2007 19:30 (sixteen years ago) link
maybe now it'll turn a profit.
sike.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 7 December 2007 10:20 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― omar little, Sunday, 16 December 2007 03:42 (sixteen years ago) link
no shit! I love it
― Shakey Mo Collier, Sunday, 16 December 2007 05:52 (sixteen years ago) link
― s1ocki, Sunday, 16 December 2007 06:42 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― Cosmo Vitelli, Sunday, 16 December 2007 07:21 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm giving this the number two slot in the high school paper! (number one = INLAND EMPIRE)
― Tape Store, Sunday, 16 December 2007 07:28 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― Eric H., Sunday, 16 December 2007 07:32 (sixteen years ago) link
more terrible, I mean.
― Eric H., Sunday, 16 December 2007 07:35 (sixteen years ago) link
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!)
― Tape Store, Sunday, 16 December 2007 07:45 (sixteen years ago) link
Oh, yeah...This year's class watched Funny Games!
― Tape Store, Sunday, 16 December 2007 07:46 (sixteen years ago) link
Wow, this is a high school class, right? Wish I'd gone there.
― Rock Hardy, Sunday, 16 December 2007 13:57 (sixteen years ago) link
got the director's cut dvd. the cut's not much different at all, but the extras and commentary are worth it.
― latebloomer, Saturday, 19 January 2008 04:54 (sixteen years ago) link
what a good movie....i own it but didn't finish, tho I saw it n the theatres...
― Bo Jackson Overdrive, Saturday, 19 January 2008 04:55 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― milo z, Saturday, 19 January 2008 05:11 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 19 January 2008 11:25 (sixteen years ago) link
Yeah I really don't think Kubrick did "psychology" very much.
― Noodle Vague, Saturday, 19 January 2008 11:33 (sixteen years ago) link
One of the reasons I love him haha.
psycology is externalised in kubrick, possibly?
― Frogman Henry, Saturday, 19 January 2008 15:56 (sixteen years ago) link
Kubrick's all primal psychology and no backstory.
― Eazy, Saturday, 19 January 2008 16:10 (sixteen years ago) link
What do we find out about Norton that isn't part of the 'surprise' and/or sloganeering?
― milo z, Saturday, 19 January 2008 16:41 (sixteen years ago) link
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'.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 19 January 2008 17:32 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― milo z, Saturday, 19 January 2008 17:40 (sixteen years ago) link
zodiac is ALL about character
― s1ocki, Saturday, 19 January 2008 23:20 (sixteen years ago) link
I don't see the Kubrick parallels either (perhaps a certain detachment pervades it, but that's certainly not unique to Kubrick.)
― Alex in SF, Sunday, 20 January 2008 00:00 (sixteen years ago) link
If anything I think Fincher's treatment of actors (like setpieces or as I said above wallpaper) has more in common with Hitchcock.
― Alex in SF, Sunday, 20 January 2008 00:05 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― Alex in SF, Sunday, 20 January 2008 00:46 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― ryan, Friday, 25 January 2008 07:39 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 25 January 2008 14:15 (sixteen years ago) link
i never know what to make of claims about performances like that...
― ryan, Friday, 25 January 2008 21:51 (sixteen years ago) link
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.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:13 (sixteen years ago) link
yeah, i never got the hate for his character on this thread.
― deeznuts, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:44 (sixteen years ago) link
saw for the fourth time last week, great as ever
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:55 (sixteen years ago) link
i mean "rescreened"
and yeah rdj is great - character wouldve been killed by some bullshit hammy johnny depp acting but he really inhabits it
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:56 (sixteen years ago) link
rdj is awesome!!
― s1ocki, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:05 (sixteen years ago) link
must get this director's cut editiony thing.
the aqua velvet scene never fails to bring lolz
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:07 (sixteen years ago) link
'THIS... can no longer be ignored'
'hey bullitt, its been a year! you gonna catch this fuckin guy or not?'
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:09 (sixteen years ago) link
the scene at the bullitt premiere gave me a movie boner.
― s1ocki, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:19 (sixteen years ago) link
it were DIRTY HARRY!
no oscar nominations AT ALL?? can we have a recount?
― pisces, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:46 (sixteen years ago) link
not anywhere as original as Fight Club, which got one nomination: Sound Effects Editing.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:52 (sixteen years ago) link
holy shit morbz
you are not allowed to have opinions about movies
― and what, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:56 (sixteen years ago) link
No, he's right. Long and boring.
― contenderizer, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:57 (sixteen years ago) link
who the fuck are you?
― and what, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:58 (sixteen years ago) link
no, it's good. But one just-good murder film is interchangeable with another.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:59 (sixteen years ago) link
http://i10.glitter-graphics.org/pub/1/1140r4teg1tiai.gif
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:00 (sixteen years ago) link
all this time i just thought you were acting like a slow 17 yr old, i didnt know you actually were one
― and what, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:01 (sixteen years ago) link