*** Official ZODIAC Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Early reviews at AICN & RT look good. It's about time for a great one from Finch.

E

"Some will find it tedious and slow."

Yea My G/F who has trouble with films with this subject matter really liked it and commented on it being so well made. The friend we went with hated it thinking it was long and boring.

We both thought it didnt feel like 2 hours and 45 minutes at all.

Jon,
My wife also said she didn't want it to end. She loved it, and this "genre" is not her cup of tea. She thought it was too short

I saw this last night in a packed house. In short, a fantastic film. Riveting dialogue, great performances, and no fat. The movie moves at a clip that I couldn't believe. I was never bored.

Zodiac is a master class for other directors -- this is how to make a compelling thriller. It's like Titanic or Apollo 13 in that we know the end but we are on the edge of our seat for the duration because every facet of the film is spot on -- editing, music (or lack thereof, cinematography, performances, direction, script, what have you.

There will not be a better thriller this year.

Masterwork by Fincher. So much so that the wife and I went out and got two Zodiac books at Borders right after the film.

She's hooked on the case....

In many ways, this is Fincher's "Close Encounters" - his meditation on obsession. But unlike that film, this doesn't concentrate or dwell on a single dominant character to evoke it's theme. Instead, the Zodiac case is the actual star, with a multitude of characters trying to solve it over the years. It does kinda play (structurally) like two or three separate movies - but what makes it work/holds it together is Fincher's acute focus on theme. It's the glue.

-The scene with Charles Fleischer is one of the scariest I've ever experienced (Wow).

-Fincher's hard on for American Graffiti continues (Candy Clark!)

-Casting Ione Skye was a nice touch after the brilliant use of Donovan's Hurdy-Gurdy Man earlier (which I'll never be able to hear the same way again).

-Digital photography is kicking ass and taking names.

-The film is even more powerful in retrospect (playing in your head)

Fincher's best movie, IMO. Does an excellent job of getting across the gist of the case, even if it "JFKs" the facts a little (Allen's alibis hold up more strongly than the movie/Graysmith portray)

I see a lot of in common with Alan Moore's From Hell, particularly the notions of drowning in information and how trying to solve the case only seems to make it even more unsolvable, which then perpetuates the obsession over it.

Saw this last night and thought it was very good. I'm not much of a fan of Fincher, but this is a fantastic movie. Absolutely griipping; it makes you share the obsessive nature that the principles had. Long movie, yes, but well worth the time.

"Casting Ione Skye was a nice touch after the brilliant use of Donovan's Hurdy-Gurdy Man earlier (which I'll never be able to hear the same way again)."

It was nice to see Ione again.

When I first saw this I thought it may have been a scene that Fincher was forced to shorten to cut the time down. But theres those few seconds of tension from when the woman says "wheres your baby?"

I heard a couple gasps when he said the line about throwing the baby out the window before he kills her so while I thought the fade on that scene was odd at first I think Fincher deciced to go for the tension rather than show how she got away,which I also heard someone say in the theater, as well as my G/F asking me "howd she getaway?"

(He had made a wrong turn and accidently driven up a freeway offramp. He came to a stop and she jumped out of the car and into a field with tall grass. He was looking for her when the truck came along and Z, if it was him, got in his car and left.He then went back and burned her car. She was taken to a police station where while filing her report noticed the Zodiac wanted poaster and said thats him. However K Johns actually identified Other Zodiac suspect Lawrence Kane as the one who kidnapped her. Theres dabate on whether Johns was actually kidnapped by Zodiac or whether he took credit for something he didnt do. The only place that her ordeal was reported was in a very small circulation paper, but the description given of the guy who did it at the time matched Zodiac - Navy dress crewcut glasses,happned on a weekend, full moon.)

Zodiac is easily the first great film of the year for me personally. Granted, I've only managed to see the mainstream releases thus far, but still, it was good to see something excellent for once.

From what I had read going in, I was expecting a rather leisurely-paced film, but I thought it moved rather quickly. I really hope Fincher has a chance to release the 3 hour version on home video.

For some reason, the scene where the Zodiac killer is holding the couple at gunpoint was absolutely terrifying. The juxtaposition of the weird costume and the fact that it happened in broad daylight was just creepy. This scene was just packed with suspense.

Without a doubt, the most intense and disturbing scene in the film. I found this was the one that stayed with me after it was over. Probably one of the most terrifying moments in a fim ever. When he's stabbing the victims, in broad daylight, well, that's beyond conventional horror film technique. There was no moody music, just an awful moment of violence.

I remembered liking the shot of showing the passage of a year's time with the building of the Transamerica Pyramid structure, and the nice shot from the top of the Golden Gate bridge looking downward.

Man I am in a serious minority. Most here saying it's the best movie of the year so far and I just didn't go for it. I don't think I was tired yesterday but I found it just too long.

The performances were certainly good. Ruffalo especially. I just think it could have been a bit tighter.

Not a bad film by any means though.

It was good, but to long and all over the place to be truly great. Ruffalo was great in the film, but his part of the story kind of took away from the film. Dwelling on his character for what felt far to long. Especially considering nothing seems to move along when it isn't with Graysmith.

Tim,
You did give it a 7.5 out of a 10 grade scale which IMO, means you think it's a good film just not a great one. Perhaps, you will like it better if you see it again. As far as length, I was so into the film that the passage of time was very swift as far as runtime without me ever looking at my watch during the film.

I said this in the review thread but I saw it a second time and found it to move much faster than the first time around.

Yea I dont understand the its too long complaints. But this is coming from someone who felt this and Alexander Final Cut flew by and tends to like "long films"

You know what freaked me out? Lee and I share the same birthday (as shown in the film).

LOL! I haven't seen that one yet...but, the reason this film is "too long" is because it is, in fact, two films strung together. One is about the Zodiac killer, how he played the media, how he killed people, and how the Chronicle and the police got involved. The other is about Graysmith's obsession in finding out the truth. Some of the players are the same, but they are very distinct stories. Add to that, there is never any real resolution. It all can make the film feel extremely long...and, it is!

Now, did that bother me? The length didn't bother me because the film is so well done and the acting is so great. But, the two stories did bug me a little. There is a pretty obvious shift midstream when the film turns to Graysmith and away from the Zodiac. It pretty much happens right when they have to let Leigh go.

I do think a more focused film could and would have been much better. But, I would have lost so much cool material and a lot of Ruffalo's great performance. So, it's a hard call.