Zodiac — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/3/07 at 3:13pm

I saw it last night. I admired it. Found it interesting, informative and exhaustive (not to mention exhausting). But what I did NOT find it to be was entertaining. Fincher's painstaking attention to minutia and detail is commendable. He does a great job of recreating the look and feel of 70's San Francisco without resorting to the usual clichés. The acting is all-around excellent, although Chloe Sevigny is wasted in a mostly thankless role. Anyone going expecting a SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or (fill in the blank with serial killer movie of your choice) will, no doubt, be disappointed. I would liken it more to an ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, than to a typical serial killer movie. It covers a lot of ground, provides a ton of information, and gives the viewer, what I would guess is, a fairly accurate and detailed representation of a decades-long police investigation. While I admired it and am glad I saw it, I doubt I'd ever have the inclination to sit through it a second time.

#27

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/3/07 at 11:07pm

Just got back, and I loved it. Nearly three hours long, but not a wasted moment. Fascinating police procedures, investigation, and character bits, balanced out by some of the most terrifying scenes in recent memory.

Acting is excellent all around. Gyllenhaal is very amusing at first, and then believably obsessed. Ruffalo does his best work, and Downey Jr. creates yet another layered, memorable character. I could see him getting Oscar conideration. The entire supporting cast sparkles (especially John Carroll Lynch), and form a cohesive and committed ensemble.

Technically, the movie is rock-solid. The screenplay is fat-free, the direction is taut, and the cinematography and editing are top-notch.

Absorbing, suspenseful, richly textured, and haunting. See it.

Updated On: 3/3/07 at 11:07 PM

#28

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/3/07 at 11:13pm

I just got back too. I thought the movie was excelent. It just bothers me that the case is still unsolved...

#29

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/3/07 at 11:20pm

Just got back.

Though it had fantastic acting (Downey, Jr. was particularly excellent) and was well-directed, but didn't care all that much for the screenplay.

I liked it, though. I second most of what Lucious said.

"One no longer loves one's insight enough once one communicates it."

The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.

#30

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/3/07 at 11:38pm

I saw it today and I agree with everything Luscious said. I'm glad that I saw it but I was slightly disappointed. I think it would have helped if it wasn't so long and slow paced.

#31

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 12:15am

I think it would have helped if it wasn't so long and slow paced.

Long? Yes. But, slow-paced? For me, it didn't drag for a second.

#32

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 12:39am

Just got home. I thought it was amazing.

I don't think it deserves any Oscar consideration for the performances, but I will absolutely put it on my lists for a few categories...Picture, Direction, Editing, Art Direction, Cinematography.

Of course, it's not THAT good, but this early in the year, it really stands out.

"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy." -Charlie Manson

#33

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 12:44am

I don't think it deserves any Oscar consideration for the performances

I'm disappointed to hear that. Out of a fantastic ensemble, not one is good enough?

#34

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 1:01am

They were all solid, but nothing was BRILLIANT.

I suppose Ruffalo stands out the most, but barely so. Gyllenhaal was solid, but nothing revelatory. Downey was being the same person he's played in almost every film he's ever done.

"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy." -Charlie Manson

#35

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 1:18am

I agree with you about Gyllenhaal. Ruffalo was as good as he's ever been. I totally disagree with you about Downey. I thought he was mesmerizing, layering Avery with a flamboyant personality to hide his character's wounds and flaws.

#36

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 2:39am

As I said, I admired it; the attention to detail, the solid performances, the cinematography, and the gargantuan amount of information presented in a mostly concise and cohesive manner. I just found it to be somewhat clinical and dry. You really don’t get to know any of the characters, at least not from a personal perspective. And perhaps that's the way Fincher intended it to be. The film takes on an obsessive quality by immersing the viewer in the minutia and details of the case in much the same way the characters in the film, and no doubt in real life, find themselves immersed to the point of obsession. And although I didn't find it to be the least bit frightening, it was definitely atmospheric, suspenseful and haunting at times. I'd recommend it to lovers of real-life crime dramas. It's almost like watching a cinéma-vérité style documentary of a police investigation. Interesting and absorbing, but ultimately a bit cold, impersonal and detached for my taste.

#37

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 11:34pm

I definitely found it frightening.

Some segments towards the end were more frightening than any horror movie in the last 10 years.

"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy." -Charlie Manson

#38

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 11:37pm

I really, really enjoyed it and I thought the acting was strong all around. It was suspenseful and well-paced.

#39

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/4/07 at 11:44pm

THAT WAS ROBERT DOWNY JR!!!!

i knew it.

we couldn't stay to watch the credits cuze it was past 1.30am by the time the film ended and various people were pissed

"Picture "The View," with the wisecracking, sympathetic sweethearts of that ABC television show replaced by a panel of embittered, suffering or enraged Arab women" -the Times review of Black Eyed

#40

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/5/07 at 7:27am

Much to my surprise, I liked the film a lot. This is by far Fincher's best film, the first one I've seen that doesn't sink under the weight of over-elaborate camerawork and tricks. And I thought the performances were across the board excellent.

An intelligent movie for grownups, for a change. What a shock.

But even my respect for the film won't stop me from pointing out that while Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo and Elias Koteas are disfigured by apparently accurate but still rather ghastly 1960s and 1970s haircuts, Jake Gyllenhaal's hair is pure 2006 all the way through the nearly 25 year time span of the story.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/

Updated On: 3/5/07 at 07:27 AM

#41

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/14/07 at 11:58am

Saw it tonight.

Incredible incredible film.

#42

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/14/07 at 3:09pm

This was one of the longest movies I've been to recently but I loved it. It is NOT like any crime investigation movie I have ever seen. The character development was exceptional - even the smaller roles of the cops in the local police departments and the editorial board of the Chronicle were well portrayed. The murders were graphically frigtening without being gory. One of the scenes with Jake late in the movie is one of the most excruciating pieces of cinematic suspense I have seen since Hitchcock died. I thought Gyllenhal and Downey were excellent but it was Ruffalo's movie. (Anyone else walk out of the movie with a craving for animal crackers?) I have always thought he could do work of this caliber and I am glad to see him have the chance to prove it. If you want to really understand what the movie is trying to accomplish, read the tag line and keep that in mind as you watch. I recommend it highly.

#43

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/14/07 at 3:20pm

We saw this on Saturday night. It was much different than what I had expected, and that actually made me happy. I like how the story was told as a documentary. I thought the acting was very good. However, to me it was a tad too long, and could have been spiced up a little bit. I'm glad I saw it, but it's not a movie I would rush to watch again.

BroadwayBoobs: I'll give all of you who weren't there a hint of who took the pictures ...it rhymes with shameless

SOMMS: I knew it was Tink!

#44

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/14/07 at 3:31pm

I thoroughly enjoyed it. With the exception of the "too long" comments (I like a long movie and thought this one was the right length to tell the story it needed to tell, and in the way it needed to tell it), I agree with most of the comments here. Great movie, well-done and well-told. The acting all around was superb - who knew Ruffalo could take on a character like this, and be so convincing? Robert Downey Jr. was great as well.

If you go into this expecting a thriller in the traditional sense, you won't get that. I think some of the folks in the theater I was in fell into this camp. What you will get is a good grasp of the frustration of hitting dead leads, both on the journalism side and on the invetigation side. This approach was very well-done.

I also thought the "period" feel of the movie was spot on. So many movies that take place in the 70s feel like a current day movie dressed up in a 70s costume. This one "felt" like it took place in the 70s. From props to costumes to dialogue, it felt very authentic. Very good all around - much different than what I expected from the previews.

#45

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/14/07 at 3:39pm

Peach - you are right about the period feel of the movie. They picked the right background music at every point.

#46

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/14/07 at 3:45pm

And from what I remember, they were pretty consistent (instead of seeing 1990's cars driving down the street and such).

BroadwayBoobs: I'll give all of you who weren't there a hint of who took the pictures ...it rhymes with shameless

SOMMS: I knew it was Tink!

#47

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/22/07 at 8:26pm

Agree with Luscious...

LOVED the soundtrack!
Have to agree with the review I found on Amazon:
As befits a movie set mostly in the late '60s and early '70s, this album, spanning rock, jazz and soul, is made up of tracks from that time; the happy surprise is how utterly smart the selection is. (David Shire's score is available on a separate CD.) With heavy irony, since the movie is about the hunt for a serial killer, the CD opens with Three Dog Night's cover of "Easy to Be Hard" from Hair ("How can people be so heartless? How can people be so cruel?"). This is in keeping with the overall vibe, which emphasizes the period's more sinister underbelly--not so much the flower-power vibe as the way the country crash-landed with Vietnam. The most startling pick may well be the Animals' apocalyptic 1968 epic "Sky Pilot," which includes a bridge that mixes diving-bomber noises, earth-shaking explosion rumble, bagpipes (!) and gunfire, before going off into romantic ballad mode complete with string and horn sections. Lynn Anderson's country-pop hit "(I Never Promised You a) Rose Garden" suddenly becomes a taunt, while those who only know Santana from his recent lite offerings will be shocked by the manic fervor and darkly sexual drive of "Soul Sacrifice," from his debut album. As for Donovan's psychedelic "Hurdy Gurdy Man," which plays a big part in the movie's narrative, it sounds positively terrifying in this context

"Two drifters off to see the world. There's such a lot of world to see. . ."

#48

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/22/07 at 10:50pm

I finally saw this movie, and can't add anything to what's already been said. I will marry Jake Gyllenhaal, but I think Robert Downey Jr. was ASTOUNDING in the film. Mark Ruffalo certainly didn't disappoint, either. It had me frightened, and movies typically don't affect me in that way...but every time it reverted back to a crime scene, you just KNEW what was coming, and it was a terrible feeling. Brilliant.

#49

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/22/07 at 11:22pm

So this will probably come across as a dumb question, but humor me...

How gory is this film? There is a new theatre that opened her that serves dinner while you watch a movie. I don't want to go to a film that will make the idea of eating repulsive. From what I have read it is a great psychological film, but I don't want a lot of gore for gore's sake. Can anyone compare the amount of blood and guts in this film with another one so I have an idea of what we are walking into? Thanks!

"All the while making faces like a baby platypus who forget to take some Beano before eating a chimichanga." FindingNamo in reference to Jessica Simpson's singing.

#50

re: Zodiac

Posted: 3/23/07 at 8:34am

blood and guts is minimal... i saw this a couple weeks back, and i don't remember any blood (but that doesn't mean there wasn't any)... it's just frightening more than anything else...

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95