criterionforum.org

Barmy wrote:Looks like U.S. BO will top out at $35 million. Bomb.

The only infallible criterion for a movie's actual worth that I know of; hence, Barmy must think Wild Hogs is a masterpiece.

Barmy wrote:Looks like U.S. BO will top out at $35 million. Bomb.

It'll do really well on DVD, I imagine. And hopefully we'll get to see Fincher's full-length cut.

Oedipax wrote:

Barmy wrote:Looks like U.S. BO will top out at $35 million. Bomb.

It'll do really well on DVD, I imagine. And hopefully we'll get to see Fincher's full-length cut.

Yeah, he's talked it up in the press that the DVD will definitely include more footage. I sure hope he gives the film the deluxe treatment that his past ones have on DVD. I'd sure like to hear a Robert Graysmith/Dave Toschi commentary track.

I also think that the film will probaby do well when it finally opens in Europe and the rest of the world.

exte wrote:For me, Zodiac is a film of three stories. The first deals with the twisted killer for about 40 minutes. The second deals with the thorough cop investigation between all the police precincts. The third, and the best, deals with Jake Gyllenhaal's character when he decides to pursue the case for himself, combing through all the volumes of evidence already gathered. He comes to the conclusion of who the killer may be, and fleshes out a book in the process.

The first story was an absolute atrocity and should've been left out of the movie completely. The biggest crime a former music director can do is still think like a former music director, forgetting all the responsibility that comes with taking on a true story like this. Put simply, I took offense to the fact that the killings were shown quite explicitly and with music blaring. What's the point? We've already seen violence and rock music go hand in hand in Martin Scorsese's work. Fincher knows this.

Worse, I think it's startling material for any copycat in the making. The zodiac killings have already spawned two imitators. Fincher knows this, as well. Did he really have to tantalize them with such MTV-grade sequences? I could've honestly done without it, and it would have also solved the time-length battles Fincher endured with the studio. Save it for the DVD, if you must.

Hey exte, I read your comments when you first posted them but I wanted to think about them a bit before I responded.

I think you and I have an entirely different reading of the murder sequences of the film. To me (Scorsese parallels aside, which I think are tenuous at best and far less gratuitous compared to something like the murders in Goodfellas) the murders in Zodiac highlighted just how frighteningly random they were. The couple on July 4th and the couple in the park were victims of circumstance and no other reason. I think what Fincher was trying to do here is convey that whenever we hear of serial killers - BTK or Jeffrey Dahmer for example - we think of them as "other" people and the victims as "other" people. What Fincher does here is show us we're all "other" people. And to take the point even further, that "law and order" in civilized society is merely a facade. We appoint people with badges and uniforms to take care of the rest of the stuff that we don't want to deal with. But the cold hard truth is that killers, cops and citizens are all in one of the same. I think it was just as compelling as it was frightening that a political cartoonist who just happened to have an interest in puzzles did as much legwork and investigation as the regular police force did. I think what seperates Zodiac from other serial killer flicks that are usually wrapped up cleanly, is offer a glimpse of something closer to reality, of cases that are bungled by jurisdictional nonsense, mounting case files, limited manpower and just plain inexperience.

As for "copycats" I don't think filmmakers - or authors (who have written countless biographies or accounts of any serial killer you can name) or musicians - have societal responsibility for their work. I believe people are responsible for their actions, plain and simple. I think it's a lazy excuse to blame media. To take a recent example - the Columbine killings - in which everything from The Matrix to first person shooter video games were blamed for the violence it amazes me that no one asked how these kids got their hands on an arsenal of weapons, why they were bullied or how no one - their parents or teachers - noticed that their mental state deteriorated to such a point where they felt a suicide mission was their only escape. But perhaps this is a topic for another thread.

The latest issue of Sight & Sound magazine features an interview with Fincher and Savides.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:The latest issue of Sight & Sound magazine features an interview with Fincher and Savides.

Great article, btw. It's interesting how hesitant Savides is to embrace digital cinematography despite the great results achieved in the film.

Fincher is interviewed in the Telegraph.

It's a pity this film didn't do too well.

I think it's Fincher's best work and the first great movie of 2007.

By far David Fincher's best movie (and arguably his first that's of any real worth). As said before, one of 2007's first great films.

Grimfarrow wrote:By far David Fincher's best movie (and arguably his first that's of any real worth). As said before, one of 2007's first great films.

Glad you argued it...

exte wrote:

Grimfarrow wrote:By far David Fincher's best movie (and arguably his first that's of any real worth). As said before, one of 2007's first great films.

Glad you argued it...

OK, no arguments then. It's his first film that's of any real worth.

Just finished watching this, definitely one of the best American films I've seen this year. I've always admired Fincher's style (ultimately, it's the main reason to watch any of his previous films even if they do have moments of brilliance), but it's nice to see him keeping it a little subdued and not throwing in camera tricks in every shot. The film was wonderfully moody and made incredible use of the San Francisco backdrop (even though I'm assuming most of it was shot in LA). He does love those sky-high locked shots on cars though, and they always make me feel like I'm in a videogame.

Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was a revelation, he played the role perfectly without falling into the trap of "quirky" mannerisms - he was vaguely creepy throughout without losing the "boy scout" center of the character. Downey was as good as usual, but this is obviously the type of role he can do on autopilot and still be fantastic. The rest of the cast was a bizarre hodgepodge that worked more often than it didn't (I never expected Donal Logue to show up in a dramatic role in this of all pictures).

Ultimately this film really struck me as the most original entry in the true crime/serial killer subgenre in recent years if just for the fact that it wasn't about getting inside the killer's head (like most serial killer films) or about public hysteria over the killings (like Summer of Sam, which is actually what I expected this film to be like). I suppose the writers of the script were kind of boxed in by the historical details of the case, and I'm glad they didn't try to stray too far outside the lines in order to make the movie more palatable to mainstream audiences.

I'll probably have more to say, but now it's time for sleep.

Ultimately this film really struck me as the most original entry in the true crime/serial killer subgenre in recent years if just for the fact that it wasn't about getting inside the killer's head (like most serial killer films) or about public hysteria over the killings (like Summer of Sam, which is actually what I expected this film to be like). I suppose the writers of the script were kind of boxed in by the historical details of the case, and I'm glad they didn't try to stray too far outside the lines in order to make the movie more palatable to mainstream audiences.

And looking at the IMDB page for Zodiac kind of confirms this, with threads complaining about Fincher not throwing a twist in the end and people who are trying to "crack the case" and are convinced that one of the main characters is the Zodiac. This isn't that kind of film, and that's what made it so engrossing to me - Fincher totally sidesteps every cliche of the genre.

exte wrote:The first story was an absolute atrocity and should've been left out of the movie completely. The biggest crime a former music director can do is still think like a former music director, forgetting all the responsibility that comes with taking on a true story like this. Put simply, I took offense to the fact that the killings were shown quite explicitly and with music blaring. What's the point? We've already seen violence and rock music go hand in hand in Martin Scorsese's work. Fincher knows this.

Worse, I think it's startling material for any copycat in the making. The zodiac killings have already spawned two imitators. Fincher knows this, as well. Did he really have to tantalize them with such MTV-grade sequences? I could've honestly done without it, and it would have also solved the time-length battles Fincher endured with the studio. Save it for the DVD, if you must.

I mostly agree with Antoine Doinel on this one, first because I don't remember any of the killings having music playing behind them except for the first one, which uses "Hurdy Gurdy Man" in a really effective manner. While I'm not denying the scenes were violent, I actually thought they were rather restrained in a manner - it seemed like you generally saw one victim witnessing the other being killed, and Fincher never really lingers on the violence. Plus, since the killer is never really humanized, there's nothing "cool" about the murder scenes (something I'm not sure you can say about the scenes in Goodfellas). Fincher even goes out of his way to use multiple actors Cruising-style to disorient the viewer. I will say that I thought the scene with the lady who's picked up by someone who's possibly the Zodiac was a bit gratuitous, in that it added nothing to the plot, but I'm sure Fincher realized he had a chilling setpiece if he used it. Ultimately, this is probably the most "responsible" serial killer film I've ever seen, if there can be such a thing. At no point does Fincher try to sensationalize the subject, and I don't think he's trying to make killing look cool either.

It's been a while since I saw this but I still think it's the best film I've seen t his year, mind you, I haven't seen too many new releases unfortunately. However, Antoine, I have to disagree with you about the depictions of the killings in it, I didn't feel like Fincher was exploiting the killings at all. I found them presented in a horrorifying yet unexploitative manner that was respectful to the victims.

And also, I don't quite see the point of arguing that this film will inspire copy cats since that arguement has been used since day one against violence depicted onscreen. You could say the exact same thing about the violence in war movies like Flags Of Our Fathers ("Damn those Japs! I'm gonna go shoot me one!"), or United 93 ("oh so that's how the terrorists did it!"), or Compulsion ("I want to try killing someone for kicks too, and now I know not to make the mistakes those guys did!"), or perhaps even Last Days ("Me so sad, me like Cobain, me think me blow off head like Cobain did."), etc...

If you want to see another serial killler movie, which really Zodiac isn't but for arguements sake pretend it is, that exploits the deaths of real life victims and glorifies the killer by making him look "cool," check out Wolf Creek. I bet the families of those two girls loved watching how barbarically they are killed in it. Although, of course, the deaths of those two girls are completely invented by the filmmakers.

Just for the record, it was exte who found the killings exploitative, not myself (please see above).

Roger_Thornhill wrote:If you want to see another serial killler movie, which really Zodiac isn't but for arguements sake pretend it is,

Yes, I understand you weren't applying the serial killer label to Zodiac, but the film owes much more to All the President's Men than Se7en. The serial killer aspect is supremely downplayed, instead focusing on the journalistic investigation. The worst publicity for the film is that it's made by the director of Se7en, leaving too many people expecting the latter instead of a movie that isn't really concerned with who the killer was so much as how the case controlled the men at the center of the film.

For argument's sake, Se7en was just as much about that. The main bulk of the entire film is seen through the detective's eyes and you see how their attitudes towards the case changes. But I see your point, since the film itself has been ripped off by a good portion of the horror or suspense movies that have come out since then.

souvenir wrote:

Roger_Thornhill wrote:If you want to see another serial killler movie, which really Zodiac isn't but for arguements sake pretend it is,

Yes, I understand you weren't applying the serial killer label to Zodiac, but the film owes much more to All the President's Men than Se7en. The serial killer aspect is supremely downplayed, instead focusing on the journalistic investigation. The worst publicity for the film is that it's made by the director of Se7en, leaving too many people expecting the latter instead of a movie that isn't really concerned with who the killer was so much as how the case controlled the men at the center of the film.

I agree, All The President's Men kept popping into my head while watching Zodiac unfold in it's wonderful procedural manner, I think it's Fincher's best and most mature work. Hopefully he won't wait five years to make another film.

Roger_Thornhill wrote:I think it's Fincher's best and most mature work. Hopefully he won't wait five years to make another film.

He's already completed filming on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, and Julia Ormond. It's in post right now and is scheduled for release on November 26, 2008.

I think the killing sequences (especially young couple who got stabbed near the lake) were perfect, because they actually seemed horrible. Now I consider myself pretty used to violence on the screen, and it takes quite a bit to shock me, but Zodiac managed to do just that. I don't think I'm the only one who didn't consider the sequences to be cool at all, just troubling.

The stabbing near the lake just seemed so unbelievably painful and horrible, that none of the elaborate setups in recent torture porn films even come close. And again, atleast for me it just reminded of the gruesome nature of the killings behind this huge mystery. Had Fincher sidestepped the killings as some kind of irrelevant starting point for the investigation, the film would've lost alot of it's power. I think showing the horror of the murders is essential to the film working as well as it does. There are already enough (serial) killer films that ignore the suffering of the victims, instead concentrating on just the cat-n-mouse games that take place during the investigation.

Len wrote:I think the killing sequences (especially young couple who got stabbed near the lake) were perfect, because they actually seemed horrible. Now I consider myself pretty used to violence on the screen, and it takes quite a bit to shock me, but Zodiac managed to do just that. I don't think I'm the only one who didn't consider the sequences to be cool at all, just troubling.

The stabbing near the lake just seemed so unbelievably painful and horrible, that none of the elaborate setups in recent torture porn films even come close. And again, atleast for me it just reminded of the gruesome nature of the killings behind this huge mystery. Had Fincher sidestepped the killings as some kind of irrelevant starting point for the investigation, the film would've lost alot of it's power. I think showing the horror of the murders is essential to the film working as well as it does. There are already enough (serial) killer films that ignore the suffering of the victims, instead concentrating on just the cat-n-mouse games that take place during the investigation.

I had a similar reaction to the killings in that I found myself deeply uncomfortable and distressed when they occurred. What is so distressing about them, I think, is that they foreground the startling arbitrariness of pain and suffering. In your average slasher or torture film, pain and death are necessary and character-specific to the point that we will predict who dies or pick our favourites to die. In Zodiac of course we know who dies, but the way in which Fincher approaches that is to intrude a horror which for most of us we know only second hand, and which is alien to our lives, and then insert that into a comfortable and familiar banality. We are then confronted by a horror whose dimensions include our own lives: that death, very horrible death indeed, can spring into our lives at their most seemingly innocent moments and that we cannot even see it coming.

This horror gives the investigation, in which we are supposed to be caught up, its urgency and its importance. When the case runs cold and Graysmith must continue it on his own we are less inclined to merely scoff at his obsession; rather we can feel an importance behind it even while we also observe its negative effects. In a way, we want that possibility of death to be locked-up and removed from our life. When it is not, when it remains unresolved, as it eventually is in the true case and in the film, that prompts a certain morbid fascination. But I do think the film gives us something at the end when the man must confront the death he'd obviously been avoiding since the incident happened. Somehow a circle has been closed; and the events of the movie, far from being meaningless, take on an importance.

I missed the all-media, and it was in theatrers for about a naonosecond. Yesterday Paramount sent me the DVD -- and it's utterly magnificent. Fincher is a lot more than a clever stylist. He's a real filmmaker. This is a GREAT detective story.

And that's part of the reason why it failed to attract an audience. They thought it was a slasher flick (which it isn't) and slasher flicks have peaked. Detective films haven't been made in the U.S. since the 40's. There's no current context for them.

And this is the first film in which I've really liked Jake as an actor. He finally IS more than just a pretty face.

I saw it in the theater and loved it. Just watched it for a second time last night on DVD, and it holds up. Still best picture of the year, in my mind. Can't wait for the deluxe DVD treatment.

This is how you use CGI. I don't know what precluded Fincher from using real locations, but damned if this isn't impressive. I never would have guessed.

Jeff wrote:This is how you use CGI. I don't know what precluded Fincher from using real locations, but damned if this isn't impressive. I never would have guessed.

I believe I remember reading that the community didn't want them to be reenacting those scenes again in front of their house.