Come anticipate David Fincher's "Zodiac"

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.