Zodiac - [here there be spoilers]

Cafe Society
1

Saw Zodiac last night and I can’t stop thinking about it. In fact, it even affected my dreams. I have to say I was only expecting something competent and moderately entertaining like Panic Room (as Fincher hasn’t exactly let me down yet), but this came close to surpassing even Fight Club for me. Close, but no cigar, only because I don’t feel it’ll have the same repeat viewing quality that a movie like FC did. This movie is pristine. Knowing what little I did about the case, I was afraid the movie wouldn’t be able to satisfy and leave us scratching our heads with a “why bother”? But everything added up to an enveloping experience. I also loved the fact that Fincher defied his usual visual style. Don’t get me wrong, I love the style he developed, but it would have been out of place here, and cheapened the tone. He did us some effects, but in tasteful (if not unnoticeable) places. The most obvious was the imposition of the zodiac letters across the SF Chronicle, with maybe the least being the building construction showing the passage of time. Great device. The only impossible “Fincher” camera move I paid attention to was that of the camera being overhead the cab as it twisted and turned. A subtle and effective shot.

But overall, I found the movie a complex and terrible spiral downward that didn’t really pay too much attention to the actual killings, but the obsession that can grip the people touched by this case and just plain NEEDING to know. It became an addiction to some and a curse to others. As more time went on, it became clear that evidence was getting lost, shuffled or spoiled and that the chances of figuring out his identity went down proportionately. It was this spiral that I found the most unexpected and captivating in the complex but clearly told storytelling.

Loved it, and would like to get a discussion going. Any other thoughts?

2

I just saw the movie this afternoon. I knew a little bit about the case but not much. The movie inspired me to do some googling about the case and from what I’ve seen (despite the lack of a DNA match), it does appear that the theory suggested by the movie does point to the most viable suspect. The amount of circumstancial evidence is ridiculous.

I agree that, thematically, the movie was more about several people’s obsession with the case, how it became all-consuming in their lives and ultimately cost them professionally and personally. Robert Downy Jr. was very good in this movie as was Mark Ruffalo, who I usually don’t like. The guy playing Arthur Leigh Allen was nice and creepy too.

There really isn’t much in the way of suspense, although the trailers try to make it look that way. There is one very tense scene involving a woman and a baby that’s very effective. There’s another scene where Gyllenhaal’s character is visiting the home of a person he believes may have information about the case which takes an unexpected turn, but that scene plays more as darkly humorous than really suspenseful.

I agree that it didn’t look at all like Fincher’s regular style but it was still stylistic, just in different ways. It’s a well directed movie, and although it contains a lot of information about the case, including some blind alleys and dead ends, it never gets confusing.

It’s a good film. it’s not you standard serial killer movie, it’s more of a police procedural, but it’s a frustrating procedure with no payoff. It leads to a suspect who looks good, but recognizes that the evidence isn’t quite there. It doesn’t flatly accuse Allen and fully ackowledges every problem with that theory. He can’t be quite ruled in OR out. The frustration of that uncertainty, coupled with the driving desire by the detectives and journalists investigating the case is what drives the film. Sometimes it seems like their obsession with finding the Zodiac is as much about curiosity – needing to know who it is – as it is about justice.

It’s a though provoking movie. I’ve found myself going back over it in my mind all day.

3

Haven’t seen the movie, but know about the case. Proof you CAN get away with murder.

Kinda scary, ain’t it? :eek:

4

I was bored to tears by this movie.

Superb first hour, or so, as killings are introduced, as letters get sent and deciphered, as we meet the principals only in good time.

Superb casting, acting. Great sets and make up, etc. I loved Ruffalo’s hair, and persona. He was good with Edwards. RDJ was great, as always.

The stabbing scene on the shore was brutual, scary, disturbing. Excellent scene.

Oh, man, but right about when I figured they would be wrapping things up, it went into Gyllenhal’s story. Somehow, this story was 3 hours long in a 2:40 minute movie which had already had two acts.

His relationship with his wife was thin, so there was no tension there as he strained the marriage. We had no insight as to WHY he was obsessed. Reading between the lines, I thought he was a crackpot who was ignoring evidence (“detective, did you know SOME of this killings happened NEAR a full moon?!!”). He was looking at all the same people the police looked at. And, the whole act was just him meeting with person after person again and again, and everyone in America knows that Zodiac was never found.

A lot of the drama in serial killer movies comes from eventual interaction of cop and killer, and I think this is a good thing. To give us a HINT of that much needed tension, Fincher sent Gyllenhal into that creepy movie-guy’s house, “oooo, the handwriting is close.” But, that was just a red herring, apparently to add SOME tnesion to this last act.

Great movie for 90 minutes. It should have been 100 minutes long.

It started out as a movie. It ended like JFK – a didactic, selective presentation of some facts that use Gyllenhal as a mouthpiece, not a character.

5

Saw it tonight and really like it. I thought it was completely engrossing – didn’t look at my watch once, in spite of the long running time.

I dunno; I’m kind of unsettled by the movie. Don’t watch it at a late late show when you have to come home to an empty house! :mad: