Fincher described it as 2.5 horus of talking. The reviews all make it seem like it is intricate, detail oriented yet lacks obvious drama. For people expecting Fight Club or Seven (or even Panic Room) this might be a big disappointment.

lol

plus as a San Fran resident now and a California native who was alive and scared during that era, I think I want to see it for the nostalgia element.


~~~~~

It is painful in the extreme to live with questions rather than with answers, but that is the only honorable intellectual course. (c) Norman Mailer

>lol
>
>plus as a San Fran resident now and a California native who
>was alive and scared during that era, I think I want to see it
>for the nostalgia element.

What about Fincher profiting off the victims tho?

I mean, doesn't every film about a crime essentially profit from the victims' misery?

*shrug*

I assume it's because of the time frame & number of people affected?

>I mean, doesn't every film about a crime essentially profit
>from the victims' misery?
>
>*shrug*

I said Stone was wrong for profiting from the exploitation of emotions and jingoism.


~~~~~

It is painful in the extreme to live with questions rather than with answers, but that is the only honorable intellectual course. (c) Norman Mailer

it's a fine distinction, lol

Was 93% earlier this morning tho

I think it's partially due to my long love affair with the Bay and that I saw some TV show about the Zodiac when I was younger (14 or 15).

I'm really trying to see that, but the schedule is gonna be the X factor for the next couple weeks. Damn surgeons are messin around with my free time. And 300 might be more essential to my theatre experience.

It's very takly similar to The Good Shepard. The soundtrack is great. The cinematography is top notch. There's a few aerial shots that are quite impressive including 1 of the GGB that I wish I had framed on my wall at home. There's also a sped up shot of the Transamerica building being built that looked great & helped break the monotony of the rest of the movie.

Those thinking this will be similar to Se7en are in for quite a shock. If I remember correctly there's only 3.5 scenes of Z in action & they all happen pretty early in the movie. Most of the movie focuses on the cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of the different cities that Z "supposedly" committed crimes in. As well as the media, represented largely by Robert Downey Jr. who continues to be on a roll as of late. Mark Ruffalo & Anthony Edwards make for a nice buddy cop tandem but they should've cast someone else besides Dermont Mulroney as their boss. Jake Gyllenhaal (whose character wrote the book the movie was based on) does a good job as well but doesn't really take center stage till the 3rd act & by that time he's pretty much just retreading similar territory Ruffalo & Edwards explored earlier. I just stopped caring after awhile & perhaps that's due to the fact that I already know that the case is still unresolved.

Overall I give it a B- as I think it could've been edited down better. The 2 hour 40 minute running time really started to wear on me after awhile. And the ending of course leaves you hangin.

~~~~~

It is painful in the extreme to live with questions rather than with answers, but that is the only honorable intellectual course. (c) Norman Mailer

although I liked every movie Finchy's done

but fincher didn't lie...it really
is entirely folks talking or on their
way to talk.

take away about forty five minutes of
flab and add more suspence, and this is
a good movie.

as it stands, the actually zodiac killings
aren't really necessary to deal with the
central theme of this movie which is


SPOILERS



















obsession, and the length that folks will
go to acheive some goal.



overall, i felt like this movie was a waste
of my time, and was not even a serious, in depth
examination of obsession at all. jake gynllenhal's
character was obsessed, but since the movie doesn't
even really end with him, you are left with no real
resolution.

basically, i took out a girl that i'd been a great dates
with before, filled with good convo, good food, and
cool things to do, but this time all she did was drone
on self-indulgently all night on some artsty, pretentious
shit.

she's now on my disslist, and unless i have serious
reason to fool with her again, i probably won't.


WWW.TYPEILLYPRESS.COM <-- buy product
http://blog.myspace.com/mtorez <--- recent exploits

<--- SOUTHSIDE NEFERTITI # 3
art by PENCILISM (ye'en ready!)

>SPOILERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>obsession, and the length that folks will
>go to acheive some goal.
>
>
>
>overall, i felt like this movie was a waste
>of my time, and was not even a serious, in depth
>examination of obsession at all. jake gynllenhal's
>character was obsessed, but since the movie doesn't
>even really end with him, you are left with no real
>resolution.

SPOILERS







I think Jake's character does get some resolution. He tells his wife all he wants is to be able to look the Zodiac in the eye and know it's him. And he does that in the second to last scene in the movie. So he gets the only closure he really needs. He's able to write the book in good conscience and reunite with his kids.

i liked the movie even though it WAS way too long being about a movie on an unsolved mystery about a "maybe or maybe not" serial killer...the key issue about the movie was about a man's obsession, and for the suppose "main" character (who really becomes the main focus on the latter half of the movie) it never really explain on WHY he was obsessed...i could understand the cop's particular obsession, but not the lead character...they DID show him getting closure in the end, and him reuniting with his wife & kids, but it never explained WHY he was obsessed when he had absolutely no connection with the case...he was a sidebar


but the movie itself was pretty good, for a film that had minimum violence, and hardly no action, the pacing was really good for an extremely long movie, and that's all due to the colorful acting...everyone did great...robert downy jr especially

also the LOOK of the movie made you feel like you're ACTUALLY inside that era....how they made the late 60's and the 70's was TOO on point! it gave you a feel like you were right there....

i didn't realized how long this movie was until the VERY end...the movie hardly dragged

>it never really explain on WHY he was obsessed...i could
>understand the cop's particular obsession, but not the lead
>character...they DID show him getting closure in the end, and
>him reuniting with his wife & kids, but it never explained WHY
>he was obsessed when he had absolutely no connection with the
>case...he was a sidebar

He said he was obsessed with puzzles. It only seems natural he'd become completley obsessed with one that started out slow/easy enough (the ciphers) - he stayed in those meetings with the rest of the newspaper staff with no real reason to because there was a problem that needed to be solved in the form of a type of riddle. That evolved into a much more difficult puzzle that he NEEDED to solve. Once he finally did he could move on.

I enjoyed it a lot. my 3 questions are....
1. why didn't Graysmith show a picture of Leigh to Darlene's sister in prison since she saw Leigh at the "painting party"?
2. Why didn't anyone show a picture of Leigh to the pregnant lady who got thrown out of Zodiac's car?
3. Didn't Zodiac have the same black Mustang looking car for the killings? Did Leigh own that kind of a car??

>I enjoyed it a lot. my 3 questions are....
>1. why didn't Graysmith show a picture of Leigh to Darlene's
>sister in prison since she saw Leigh at the "painting party"?

He, at that time, was convinced it was Rick Marshall. Leigh was out as a suspect.

>2. Why didn't anyone show a picture of Leigh to the pregnant
>lady who got thrown out of Zodiac's car?

They never went back into detail about the lady with the baby...my guess is that she was so shaken she decided not to cooperate with police anymore.

>3. Didn't Zodiac have the same black Mustang looking car for
>the killings? Did Leigh own that kind of a car??

Nobody really mentioned the car to police in the film...and I could be wrong, but it seemed like he was using 2 different cars for whatever reason. Perhaps because people couldn't remember what type of car he really had? I dunno.

>2. Why didn't anyone show a picture of Leigh to the pregnant
>lady who got thrown out of Zodiac's car?

Because it wasn't even clear that that guy was the Zodiac. Remember when Avery takes Graysmith into the newspaper's morgue and show him that even though the Zodiac took credit for it in one of his letters, he didn't know any details that weren't in the paper. The same with the police-man's murder in the same issue. At that point, they figured the Zodiac was taking credit for murders and attempted murders he didn't commit because he liked the attention.

true, but she SAW his face!!!! so she could have easily picked him out of a line-up!!!!! At least then if it was Leigh, they could have pursued him harder. A positive ID allows a warrant right??

so she wouldn't of ID'd anyone they put in the line-up.
-------

I'm focused maaaaaaann

saw it today and i definitely enjoyed it, after stopping in this thread i was prepared for the amount of dialogue and length. it definitely wasn't Seven, but it was worth the watch for sure.

I will say it felt every bit of its 160 minutes length. Probably a little more even. But it was a very thoroughly police procedural and a look into the nature of obsession. It did meander a bit around the end of the first major act and the beginning of the second, but it did work for me.

is probably another reason I liked it. I totally totally relate to the experience of believing that you're the only person who has taken public information and put it together in a way that makes sense and needs to be acted on, but being completely ignored.

So that probably added to my enjoyment.

Or my fiancee. We both loved it. I had no issues with the pacing.

Yeah it's talky, but aren't most dramas?

There's some great writing, direction, and acting and when those 3 things come together all you can really do is nitpick. It wasn't a "blow you away" type of film, but it was an excellently made film. Every performance was at least solid if not great especially among the leads... unlike say another recent crime-ensemble film *coughTheDepartedcough*.

I'd say it's probably Fincher's most complete work so far. I'd give it a solid B+/A-

>Every performance was at least solid
>if not great especially among the leads... unlike say another
>recent crime-ensemble film *coughTheDepartedcough*.

Every performance in Zodiac was better than Jack's or Damon's performance. And the females in Zodiac >>>>>>>>> females in Departed.

>Every performance in Zodiac was better than Jack's or Damon's
>performance. And the females in Zodiac >>>>>>>>> females in
>Departed.

Matt Damon in The Departed>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dermont Mulroney in Zodiac

And he felt more out of place to me than Mulroney. Plus Mulroney was barely even attached to the story. He had about as much screen time as William Hurt in History of Violence. Weak performance from Damon hurts Departed more than a 'blah' performance from Mulroney in Zodiac.

-------

I'm focused maaaaaaann

it started to freak me out a little since i'm a Cali resident but it was very good.

the acting was all on point and the story kept me interesting throughout the lengthly running time.

and this was at the Ritz in Voorhees , a supposedly artsy crowd

One review I read said something along the lines of the viewer gets tangled in with the investigation and becomes as interested in it as the characters are. For me, that absolutely held true. From a story standpoint, yes it was "talky". It was very little action, but a lot of story. A LOT of webs. Lots of layers. Riveting stuff, in my opinion. Kept me interested all the way through...and it didn't do the one thing that films like this tend to do: throw in forced, unnatural subplots to define the characters more. Those always just seem totally unneccessary.

Not to say there weren't subplots; the ones they had were just fine. They didn't detract from the story whatsoever and they did not waste a second of time on them. So that was good.

Then from a cinematic standpoint...this shit was great. The film changed tone through the years (since it takes places over a matter of 4 decades), but still manages to feel natural in it's progression (somewhat like The Aviator). As was mentioned, the soundtrack is phenomenal, the cinematography is great, and, much as I like them, there were very few Fincherisms inserted throughout. Some might even say he didn't put his stamp on this one like Spike Lee "didn't" in Inside Man, but I'd definitely disagree.

Acting? Jake: Damn good. RDJ: Fantastic. Ruffalo: Well done, sir. The cast was great and they all seemed to have a fantastic repoire. They all delivered the intricate, wordy, biting, and oftentimes hilarious dialouge perfectly.

Thumbs way up. I loved it.

held my attention throughout. yeah, 160 minutes is a long time, but it didn't feel like it. acting was great, especially ruffalo and downey. also good was goose and even casey jones (tmnt stand-up)

because I loved The Good Shepherd....but DEF a love it or hate it movie.

I wasn't as impressed with that film as I was with this one

This one reminded me a lot of The Insider

And the writing was on-point here
______________________________________________________________________
"Writing Rules, dumb-dumb..."
- Simon Stiles (D.L. Hughley), Studio 60

***********************************
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500290931


myself is sculptor of
your body’s idiom:
the musician of your wrists;
the poet who is afraid
only to mistranslate
a rhythm in your hair...
-E.E. Cummings

I felt drained at the end, but I was engaged all the way through.

I definitely attribute my enjoyment of parts of it to my age & location. I didn't grow up in Northern Cal, but all of California was pretty freaked out by this.

It was cool to see scenes of SF and also to remember weird details like the Halloween in 1969 when there was talk that we wouldn't go trick or treating because after all SF is only 400 miles away from the town I grew up in and the Zodiac killer was still on the loose. I think we did anyway but were just really freaked out, lol.

*******************************************************
I DON'T THINK THE FOLLOWING IS A SPOILER BUT YOU MIGHT
*******************************************************







Also there's a point at which Armistead Maupin writes that one of the detectives probably made up one of the Zodiac letters, big fuss, which I found extremely ironic, given that Maupin was himself famously taken in by someone posing as an ill child. Of course, unlike the detective, Maupain parlayed his big mistake into a nice little book & movie (The Night Listener).



~~~~~

It is painful in the extreme to live with questions rather than with answers, but that is the only honorable intellectual course. (c) Norman Mailer

I liked it but it wasn't a love/hate film. I think people were engrossed but not entertained. People might have been bored but it was solid enough not to elicit hate.

Definitely an interesting film though.

good acting, but way too long. i wanna see disturbia.

i thought it was great. and solid, like everyone's saying here.

it didn't freak me out. it gets points for that.

it's the first time i've liked mark ruffalo in a role. so kudos for that.

& yeah. i know he played a junkie. so it wasn't a stretch, but i really do love robert downey jr. and he was great here (again, some more).

Not perfect but very, very good. A solid 8.

Arguments you could make against it:
Story arc peaks too early
Dermot Mulroney (But that's one bad casting decision among a dozen good ones)
Jake section gets heavy
Points a heavy finger at a single suspect

On the positive side:
Detailed, mature, skillful filmmaking
Excellent performances
A completely authentic look and feel

Honestly, it's just nice to go to a mainstream movie theatre and see a well-done professional movie. No amateur shit here. I was fully satisfied.

BTW

I thought it was EXCELLENT!!

I didn't like Downey though. He wasn't funny, he was annoying.

Ruffalo was great as always.

I don't know how anyone could find this movie boring. It IS exhausting though if you don't know a damn thing like me.

Fight Club still sucks.

Not prepared to say whether I love it (definitely didn't hate it). I have been thinking about it ever since which is a good sign. The obvious hurdle is how do you make such a procedural without turning into a law and order episode. I guess one aspect of it is that it is true and it spanned decades. I think one thing you can't help wondering when you leave it how much police work has advanced in the last couple of decades. I think they definitely would have caught him now (nothinh seemed partiuclarly brilliant about Zodiac).

I consider it better than the Good Shepard, almost as good as Munich. All extremely well made movies, not for mass consumption.


**********

There will never be a level playing field. You need to learn to run uphill.

Every man must know a Teedra http://www.myspace.com/teedramoses

For those who are interested, Entertainment Weekly is reporting that a director's cut is coming sometime next year...
______________________________________________________________________
Ice Cube tried to take over the station
His ass is in jail RIGHT NOW...

overall I liked it. Downey Jr.'s acting style fit well here and Ruffalo was good as well.

some more generous editing and it'd be a very good movie.

almost 3 hours of straight talking and opining about every detail with little bursts of action and suspense... i watch it everynight before bed to sleep.

I missed it when it was in theaters because my girl wanted to see it, but never felt like going to the movies when I wanted to.

I was gonna buy the DVD on GP (Fincher has only let me down once), until I found out the directors cut is coming next year.

It ran too long in spots, but I definitely dug it. Much like PTA's newest, this flick lacked the "Fincher style" that has so irritated me in the past. The script was really great, and Fincher focused in on the characters, letting them carry the story rather than letting his direction and his heavyhandedness hammer some message home.

Very very well done.

excellent movie. i was very impressed w/ mark ruffalo (sp?) who did a great job.

does anyone know when the special edition dvd is coming out?

podcast: http://preachjacobs.mypodcast.com

official site: http://www.preachjacobs.com


Preach's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/kindablu

Cop it: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/preachhiphop

>does anyone know when the special edition dvd is coming out?

It's got two commentaries and some other quality supplemental material, including pieces about the composition process of the film's sly visual effects, a lengthy documentary that retraces the initial Zodiac crime scene investigations, and then a shorter but chilling series of sit-down interviews with people who knew Arthur Leigh Allen (it'll certainly make you rethink the Don Chaney "character").

i will rent it today if i can find it.

podcast: http://preachjacobs.mypodcast.com

official site: http://www.preachjacobs.com


Preach's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/kindablu

Cop it: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/preachhiphop

Watch as one man does the NY Times crossword puzzle.
Fucking boring.
Robert Downey was good as usual, but Jake?

No point except to say don't spend too much time on anything, which is ironically what happened to me with this movie.

-------------------------------------

lol

sad world we live in.
-------

I'm focused maaaaaaann

but it was very good anway

the couple at the lakeside... that ousts Psycho! for nastiest stabbing!

it's kind of JFK and LA Confidential's hot but boring cousin.

but i did not love it. It is a solid film tho.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I don't see it on the same level as the best films of 2007 but the performances make me revisit it every few years.

wasn't memorable then and i just remembered why.







THEY HAD THE GUY FROM THE BEGINNING. anti-climatic, long, and drawn out.
gyllenhal's character was batsh*t.