|
Directed by: David Fincher Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Dowey, Jr., Brian Cox, John Carrol Ly I really dug Zodiac. I read the Robert Graysmith book when it first came out and I think David Fincher did a great job capturing the feel of the story without compromising the facts. Fincher shows a surprising amount of restraint in the movie, considering this is the guy that gave us the over the top serial killer masterpiece, Seven (sorry, I can't bring myself to use that lame "7" in the middle spelling). The killings attributed to The Zodiac Killer are done in a very unglamorous matter of fact style that's actually refreshing considering the wave of sadistic torture collages with grainy stock footage and high volume rock music we've grown accustomed to as of late. They seem very real, and in the case of the Lake Berryessa killings, even more tragic than they would have been, otherwise. I may not be the best judge of this film, and frankly can't figure out how the average movie goer is going to respond. It's 2 hours and 40 minutes and JAM PACKED with evidence, facts, and figures that all seem pretty true to the actual case. So those familiar with the real Zodiac crimes should be pleased that there's not any crazy Hollywood embellishment going on here. That being said, if you're looking for some serial killer du jour film, I don't think this movie is going to do it for you. The cast is fantastic, and Jake Gyllenhaal as cartoonist/author/part time Hardy Boy Robert Graysmith has a sullen and obsessive charm that works wonderfully in the role. In one scene, he asks a fellow newspaper employee nicknamed Shorty if he hates being called that, to which he's asked, "Do you hate it when people call you retarded?" He plays the part with a clueless abandon that really makes you feel for the guy. Robert Downey, Jr. is also a kick as The Chronicle's crime reporter, Paul Avery, who gets to stretch his acting range by playing a coked out drunk writer. There's other great cameos, that are perfectly cast so as not to make you feel it's one of those Oliver Stone movies with famous people in every part. Brian Cox is particularly good as attorney Melvin Belli and Chloe Sevigny owns every second she's on film as Graysmith's ladyfriend. It's nice to see a true crime movie that for once doesn't glamourize the crime. Indeed, The Zodiac Killer with his coded letters and taunting of the police and press, made him seem like a comic book super villian. And the fact that he was never caught certainly thows him up there with Jack the Ripper as one of the all time infamous murderers. But red tape, job burn out, and inability to put what at times seem to be obvious clues together from multiple organizations that end up being the real antagonist of the movie. Again, kudos to Finch for holding back and letting the story tell itself properly with the script and actors. There are certainly some flourishes that stick out that are pure Fincher that I won't reveal here, so if you're a fan of his style, you won't be disappointed. In the original version of the book that I read, there was some speculation as to the killer's identity, and you can certainly read an awful lot about more recent findings that have been incorporated into the film on Wikipedia if you really want to know more about the case (and perhaps spoil some of the film's direction, if you didn't already know). Ultimately, however, the story ends with a feeling of dread that works nicely. It's hard to know what to spoiler about real life events, but the movie doesn't take any liberties or suggest anything new that Graysmith hasn't already suggested. My only disappointment is that nobody ever read the line in the Zodiac letters about how he thought The Exorcist was one of the funniest films he'd ever seen. Most of the other evidence, down to the goofy greeting cards, was pretty faithfully recreated, too. There's great attention to detail with the period, with very cool '70s era news vans and mail trucks driving by. There's also a super gorgeous computer simulated time lapse of The Transamerican Pyramid being built while clouds roll by. Overall, a good movie, that's a bit long. Plus there's a really awkward bit in the last 80% of the film where Graysmith's son shows him some important clue in a coded letter that's never all that clear or explained. I wonder if it was cut out for time. This will be a great deluxe 2 DVD set when it comes out, for sure. RATING: 3.5 PROS: A near literal adaptation of the true crime classic book by Robert Graysmith CONS: A near literal adaptation of the true crime classic book by Robert Graysmith ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443706/
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2007 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
A good movie, for what it was. Very interesting to watch, but it did drag at times, not because of a change in pace, but because the pace was pretty much the same throughout. Slow, methodical, but overall compelling. When I first got out of the theater, I described it in my head as sort of like a documentary, except with actors in the roles of the actual people. Then I realized that was sort of retarded, because that's what movies based on actual events should be like. So...this is what movies based on actual movies should be like. I didn't get what the deal was with Bob Vaughn's house. It seemed to me they were acting pretty heavily like he was the killer, and then Graysmith doesn't do anything about it. Overall a good movie, but I wouldn't go see it if you're looking for something action-packed. Rating: 4
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2007 01:04
|
|
|
Pie The Grand posted:I didn't get what the deal was with Bob Vaughn's house. It seemed to me they were acting pretty heavily like he was the killer, and then Graysmith doesn't do anything about it. I felt the same way. Can someone remind me what the basement had to do with the case again? I remember it was brought up before he visited Vaughn's house, but I can't remember why. I really enjoyed it, but I do agree that it tended to drag in some parts. rivals fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 3, 2007 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2007 10:23
|
|
|
p0isonxfree posted:I felt the same way. Can someone remind me what the basement had to do with the case againe? I remember it was brought up before he visited Vaughn's house, but I can't remember why. Graysmith went there because he had recieved a tip that Vaughn was holding onto a film canister for a Zodiac Suspect, Rick Marhsall. The film supposedly was the Zodiac murders. Also, to ask him about when The Most Dangerous Game was playing at the theater. I saw this last night and I loved it. I love most of David Finchers films, but this movie didn't have his typical feel to it. It felt diffrent, but believe me when I say it worked really well. Anyways, if you're going to see this for action or horror, don't bother, this is a crime/detective story and a very smart one at that. If your a fan of shows like Homicide or cold case files, you'll love it. 4.5 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2007 17:47
|
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:Graysmith went there because he had recieved a tip that Vaughn was holding onto a film canister for a Zodiac Suspect, Rick Marhsall. The film supposedly was the Zodiac murders. Also, to ask him about when The Most Dangerous Game was playing at the theater. Yes, but before that the hand writing analysist states thats the closest match he's ever seen. Why did he just drop it there? And the car...it was the same car that zodiac drove..or looked very similiar? The foot steps = Leigh Allen? Or Marshall? Why was Marshall never brought up in the whole ordeal or was there just not time in the 3 hour movie? I thought it was good. It was long, but to cover the things that it covered it was pretty well done. 4.7/5.0
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2007 01:23
|
|
|
This was in fact a long movie, but I never really felt like it dragged. The only situation that threw me off was the whole ordeal with Vaughn and his basement. I didn't know anything about the killings going in, and I was impressed with how things were portrayed. Also, I love Donal Logue, so seeing him as a clean shaven policeman was grand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2007 22:22
|
|
|
Christ, Fincher went up to bat and gave us a grand slam. Zodiac is loving amazing. I loved every bit of it, with the exception of basically dragging my girlfriend by her hair to come see it with me. I was afraid I was going to see a movie with Fincher's own spin of the story, sort of a Fiction version; however, this stuck to the true story and really came off as the real deal. That said, this was a psychological mind-gently caress. I was really drawn in to sympathize with the characters. On one hand you're angry at Graysmith for avoiding his family and becoming obsessed with the investigation, yet at the same time you want him to nail the son of a bitch and get his life back in order. One thing I loved was that the movie really encased the chaos and mystery surrounding the case. You really are in the detectives' shoes because you have no idea who seems like the greater suspect. On one hand you have X, yet Y has circumstantial comparisons to the case. The level of audience involvement is increadibly high. Of course you will have goons who will come in here and claim it ran on for too long. However, I trust most goons will blow this reasoning off. That's just how the case was. It drug on, and eventually got burried by the state and media, leaving the only ones interested to be the obscessed. I really could go on forever, but trust me when I say, you need to see this movie. Pros: Realistic & accurate recollection of story, psychological mindfuck, audience involvement Cons: Christ, I don't think there are any... 5/5.5 Edit: And about Vaughn's basement being unclear. I'm sure the scenes bringing that lead to rest were somehow cut, since the pre-studio edited cut was over 3:15:00. I'm hoping this is fleshed out better on the DC. Johnny B. Goode fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Mar 5, 2007 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2007 01:24
|
|
|
I'm a bit of a serial killer junkie, and I've always ranked Zodiac at the top for sheer mind-fuckery. I was itching for this movie. As mentioned previously, Fincher is unbelievably restrained. Yes, there are touches here and there that look like his, but if you had to watch every film of his back to back and pick one that looked and felt least like the rest, this would easily be the pick. I thought that the main problem was uneven pacing. From the start of the film until the last killing, the movie moves extremely fast, perhaps too fast. The murders are done without cheapness or exploitation, and are that much more horrifying for it. Once the killings stop, it turns into the Robert Graysmith obsession story, and although it's certainly watchable and compelling to anyone who has followed Zodiac, it does drag. The aforementioned basement sequence and just about everything connected to it could have been dealt with in a brief scene or two of exposition, but it's almost like Fincher had to have a creepy set piece. When we look at the time spent with the killings as well as a kidnapping that was far more terrifying than the movie depicts, it makes me think that he was actually more interested in Graysmith than Zodiac. Another failure is the lack of depiction of the chaos that Zodiac caused in the Bay Area. The movie is told exclusively through the eyes of the detectives and journalists, but that's no excuse to give such short shrift to what a cultural phenomenon Zodiac was. He basically mind-raped a major American city, we're talking widespread terror and near panic. This is barely hinted at in the movie. On the plus side, the performances are A+ throughout. The movie captures the look and feel of the time flawlessly, and again, Fincher eschews opportunities for style points in favor of letting the facts speak for themselves. Any number of inferior filmmakers would have ruined their pants overdoing the Lake Berryessa attacks for example (for Christ's sake, Zodiac himself overdid it in real life), but Fincher couldn't have shot it much more simply, and as a result, it's a truly gasp-inducing scene. 3.25 out of 5. Pros: Beautifully crafted, subject is compelling. Cons: Pacing, questionable choice in focus at times, and not nearly as scary as its subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2007 05:00
|
|
|
What the gently caress. This movie is forty-five minutes too long. It feels like it ends three times. Our supposed main character doesn't join the action until 90 minutes in. I liked some parts of it but overall I recommend to those who don't like boring movies - stay away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2007 06:38
|
|
|
I thought with the somewhat good reviews that this movie would be a solid mystery. Out of a 2 hour and 40 minute film, about 40 minutes were actually interesting and suspenseful. I actually laughed at the first murder scene, I mean seriously, this happened or whatever, but come on, there's no rhyme or reason, no buildup, just "oh look dead people." then cue 2 hours of "WHO IS THIS GUY!" followed by a main character's sudden budding interest seemingly out of nowhere near the end of the film. Then all of that and the supposed killer just dies at the end. Horray! What a wonderful film! 2/5 for being interesting at points, but WAY too long and extremely drull.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2007 19:24
|
|
|
4.5/5 It was long but managed to keep me interested the whole way through. The only detail that bothered me was why the police didn't follow up on the kidnapped woman and her daughter. She saw the killer's face and vehicle, you'd think that would be enough by itself to catch him or at least identify Lee. She was never mentioned again in the movie, pretty big flaw I thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2007 10:11
|
|
|
People say that Fincher was restraining himself in this, but I don't think that's true. I think that he is just refining his style. If you think about it, the trend that is so overplayed with serial killer movies, the quick cut grainy style with gloomy muddy lighting, the NIN soundtrack, cockroaches and soiled notebooks filled with lunatic scrawls, Fincher started that poo poo with Seven. If he had done the same with Zodiac, he'd just be copying himself. When I first saw panic room I hated it. I was expecting Seven, or Fight Club and there was none of that. It wasn't until I caught it again on cable that I noticed there WAS playful and witty directing in it, it was just more subtle. I went to see Zodiac because I wanted to see if Fincher continued to hone those things and I enjoyed the movie tremendously. I don't think the movie was supposed to be about the killer as much as it was about the time period, and how difficult it was for the law to catch someone like him. My wife and I were talking about the movie afterword and I brought up how at first I kept trying to keep track of how much time went by. The subtitles that kept coming up "2 1/2 weeks later" over and over again. It was frustrating because you couldn't piece together the events into any sort of timeline. But I think that was on purpose. Fincher was making a point with it, he wanted you to understand that at that time there was no CSI hair and fiber, DNA with 3D-animated recreations of the attack. It was just a cop fighting against mountains of beuracratic red tape to piece together one bit of circumstantial evidence. I guess I'm kind of a Fincher fanboy at this point. He seems to be perfecting a style that I find really entertaining. All the camera gymnastics are still there, but they're refined and more integrated into the storytelling. The long overhead shot following the cab. The construction of the Transamerica building. The pages of letters montage folding over the screen. The sudden drop of all sound when the killer says "Before I kill you, I'm going to throw your baby out the window" I like the movie, obviously. I hope that Fincher continues to get better with each film. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2007 02:02
|
|
|
You know it's a bad sign when you almost stood up at what you thought was the closing scene... and then the movie continues for another hour. (the part where they're coming out of Dirty Harry and the lead cop says, "They're already making movies about it" as Jake's new girlfriend walks up - what I thought was a perfect note of closure in that it showed the Zodiac entering into legend, and the cops/journalists resignedly giving up, with the girl there to offer a hint of rebirth for Jake..) Really, I couldn't have been more impressed with the first half of the movie. It was shot in a clean, clinical way that didn't overdramatize the killings at all, and put heavy weight on the deductive side of the case. Fine, a cerebral serial killer movie is all well and good. But then what the gently caress? The film starts to drag, and then finally loses me completely after the killer stops being a presence. I thought Gyllenhaal's character was tepid at best, with no real depth to justify his growing obsession with the case (and if we can't understand or at least empathize with that, there's really no point to the second half of the movie.) Robert Downey Jr. was great, but his role too seemed to get really confused, and he also spends the rest of the movie kind of bobbing around, not really contributing much. In essence, it mirrors the real-life Zodiac hunt way too much. Too many loose ends and bad leads, and the audience is forced to sit through all of them. Even worse is the fact that, as a historical event, we already KNOW how everything turns out, making the fact that it takes Fincher so long to get there even more offensive. I guess as a pure document of what it was like to be a political cartoonist obsessed with the Zodiac killings in the 60's and 70's Bay Area, the film is on-target. But as a forensic thriller, it blows everything that was so brilliant about its first half on an overbearing, unnecessarily tedious final part. 2:40 would have been a fine running time if the film actually had a strong core, an interesting main character, and a sense of direction, but it lacked all of that. It shouldn't be more painful to sit through a movie about a serial killer than to actually be killed by him, but the Zodiac guy finished his victims off nice and quickly, and Fincher takes two and a half hours. 2/5, it gets the two for pure competency of filmmaking and the excellent first hour and a half.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2007 03:00
|
|
|
I've got to say that I'm a little surprised by the lack of enthusiasm in this thread. Yes, I admit to being a pretty big Fincher fan, and I don't think the film was perfect (more loose threads than I'd like), but it never felt overly long to me. The degree to which Fincher has honed his craft over the years is amazing, and I think he's pulled off his second truly great film here. Easily the best film of the year so far, and one of the better films so far this decade. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 13:38
|
|
|
I honestly didn't mind the length, the director used it pretty well and I perfectly happy to sit there the whole, although my friends were whining all the way through about wanting to walk out. I agree the basement scene was unnecessarily confusing, and the ending was seriously flat, but other than that I thought it was pretty solid. My biggest disappointment was how they completely left out the Zodiac's 340-cipher, which is probably the most intriguing part of the case for me. It would also have been nice if they'd spread the killings out a bit to keep the audience awake. Pretty good, but a disappointing lack of conclusions drawn. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2007 14:00
|
|
|
Interesting film, it takes a big shift about halfway through so I'll basically sum up what I liked then some flaws with it. The first half is faultless, as a sort of police procedural / crime drama. The Zodiac killing scenes are pretty grim simply because there's no cinematic flair, they're just pretty nasty murders. The cat-and-mouse press games are good too. When you reach about halfway, this becomes the Crazy Cartoonist Cracks A Case story. Basically the faults with the movie are directly traceable to the fact Graysmith's original books were highly fictionalised and flawed. The problem is Graysmith has a reputation for not including the parts of the Zodiac case which disprove his Arther Leigh Allen theory. That that particular suspect underwent a 10 hour polygraph test, was not mentioned. Basically the story takes an idea - that Allen was the Zodiac, and turns what is in reality, and unsolved case, into "oh I know it's unsolved  but the real killer is obviously Allen".The actual case has a few more suspects, and quite a bit more clearing the prime suspect as this film portrays it. The actual reality is a lot meatier, but then it's a lot less interesting to film as you'd have to end the movie with a big fat question mark. But of course. Those are problems derived from source material. Not the film. If you're looking for a consistently atmospheric crime film, it's still pretty good. It's not horror or a thriller, so not exactly a summer movie. Some parts are left vague such as Vaughn's basement - what was up with that? and the shift in emphasis to become the Bob Graysmith Story ultimately harms the flow of the film, and for me, the actual facts. You'll enjoy it a lot more if you're not aware of who the lead character is in real life I think. 3.5 / 5
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2007 13:05
|
|
|
I enjoyed this movie I suppose, but there seem to be some glaring loose ends and blatant omissions of things that seem to be pretty goddamn important. The kidnapped woman: As has been mentioned this girl saw Zodiac's face and the make and model of his car. They never refer to her again, and the kid who Zodiac shot in the first scene is often referred to as "the only person to have seen Zodiac without a mask" The cipher: Not only is it never explained how Graysmith cracked the code (after the CIA and various intelligence agencies had failed), it's also never revealed what the hell the note says. Most importantly I think, there's a shot at some point in the movie of a Zodiac letter that quite clearly states "My name is:..." and a bunch of code. If Graysmith broke the code wouldn't he be able to find the Zodiac's identity with that? Bob Vaughn's Basement: what the gently caress? The parts of the movie that made sense were fantastic, but you could drive one of those '70's Cadillacs through some of the goddamn plotholes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2007 13:00
|
|
|
I found the movie enjoyable because I enjoyed the very matter of fact style. However, if you already know much about the case, there's no sense of suspense. A distinct departure from Seven and Fight Club which felt dirty and hopelessly depressing. Of course, that's not to say I didn't like those movies also. It was just something different. 3.5 Pros: Looks great, true to life feel during the murder scenes Cons: No real suspense, could have cut out the whole Vaughn scene and made a movie that was slightly too long, shorter
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2007 21:01
|
|
|
It's much more historical than the ads may've led you to believe. I just now rented and saw this as I ran out of movies and I gotta say, it's not nearly as much about a guy shooting as you would expect. That said, the only real short comings I would say are the occasional lack of details, like cited in Pylon's spoilered text. All in all it's a pretty well made movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2007 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
I rather enjoyed this movie. Its about 2 1/2 hours long. Nice murder scenes and the Zodiac Killer was i guess a decent actor. Jake Gylenhal(spelling?) didnt really do too nice of a job though. He acts the same in each of his movies. Its as if hes playing himself in them all. There was some loose ends in the movie though that i didnt like. However, overall the movie was pretty decent. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2008 12:14
|
|