David Fincher's Zodiac

Didn't like Panic Room, and I'm seen all the prromotions with this tagline: "From the director of Seven and Panic Room". This, for me, is saying: from the guy that is capable of the best, and the very average.

Is it better than panic Room?
 
John C Lyons said:
i dont understand how modern day filmmakers couldnt and wouldnt want to check out all his stuff just for the lighting, camerawork, etc. you gotta see fincher's movies if youre making movies today!
Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken. Fincher is definitely my favorite "modern" director.







I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.:thumbup:
 
just got back from the movie. i really enjoyed it. very good flick. great performances from everyone involved (POSSIBLE SPOILER)(it took a lot to get over the fact that the guy who they thought was Zodiac played by Drew Carey's crossdressing brother from the Drew Carey Show, but he did a great job). Fincher has made another great film. The lighting, editing, score, cinematography were all amazing. go check out the film. i didnt even mind the 2hr and 40min run time.
 
I'll be attending a screening next Wednesday followed by a Q&A with screenwriter James Vanderbilt.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John C Lyons
i dont understand how modern day filmmakers couldnt and wouldnt want to check out all his stuff just for the lighting, camerawork, etc. you gotta see fincher's movies if youre making movies today!

_______

yes. indeed this is true. plus his dvds have GNARLY special features. fincher = bad mofo
 
Blaine said:
I'll be attending a screening next Wednesday followed by a Q&A with screenwriter James Vanderbilt.
Click to expand...

Be sure and let us knows how that goes. Even if I'm not watching I would still like to hear the reviews. And your's and others opinion. Thanks.
 
Blaine said:
I'll be attending a screening next Wednesday followed by a Q&A with screenwriter James Vanderbilt.
Click to expand...
oh man, that would be awesome. very cool!

SPZ said:
Didn't like Panic Room, and I'm seen all the prromotions with this tagline: "From the director of Seven and Panic Room". This, for me, is saying: from the guy that is capable of the best, and the very average.

Is it better than panic Room?
Click to expand...
Dood, just go see the movie. The people who make up what wording goes on the posters aren't the same people making the movies. "Panic Room" and "Se7en" are his most popular films for the average joe, it only makes sense that they list them on the poster as they want people to see this very good movie.

I'm curious to see how it will do this weekend. There isn't another "Norbit" or "Night at the Museum" out this weekend, right? Maybe it stands a chance.
 
Saw this last night in a packed house in NYC. Really enjoyed it, especially the performances, and that we weren't subjected to another David "Camera through the Keyhole" Fincher sytlefest. I like his movies, but this worked so well as a classicaly styled narrative with the gritty "70s" looking HD. Great stuff. Despite the 2:40 runtime it didn't really ever feel like it dragged. My buddy said "It didn't need to be that long" as we were walking out, but on reflection neither of us could ID specific scenes that should have been cut. Very well done.

Today I was out for lunch with the same buddy (we're writing a script together) and we ran into Elias Koteas, who played Sgt. Jack Mulanax in Zodiac. He was appreciative of our kind words over his performance.

I'm dumbfounded that there are filmmakers who don't want to see Fight Club or Zodiac. Wow. That's almost as egregious as modern playwrights avoiding David Mamet plays.
 
Why do people make a big deal if a movie is long or short, it's just the same, movie that's 90 minutes long can feel like 180 and one that 180 can feel like 90. I'm seeing Zodiac when it comes out in April where i live, just because it's a David Fincher movie and nothing else... well maybe the hole Zodiac thing has a small thing to do with it and that it's shoot with a Thompson Viper.
 
i thought the film was long as well, but man is HD looking good these days! I still believe that Fincher's best film is The Game.
 
I saw a screening of this last night and after the movie, James Vanderbilt, the screenwriter spoke and answered questions. It was long but I still enjoyed it. It was shot from a 200 page shooting script. Fincher sold the studio on the fact that he was planning on making it 2:45. He told Vanderbilt not to worry about turning in a 250 page script.

Another interesting fact is that anywhere a name was used, it was real. Everyone but Toschi's (Mark Ruffalo) wife was cleared. Originally, Vanderbilt had used some pseudonyms but Fincher said he wouldn't make it if they couldn't use real names.

As a digital movie, it looked very good. But then again, it was transfered to film.

It could have been shorter but then again, I thought they did a great job telling a multi-protagonist story and getting all the facts right so I'm fine with the running time.

Vanderbilt spoke of the movie in terms of JFK and All the President's Men. JFK guided you to the theory that Stone wanted you to believe, while Fincher/Vanderbilt wanted to put it all out there and make your own judgment. Graysmith believed that .......... was Zodiac but other possibilities were put forth, too. Initially, Fincher was resistant because he had already done a serial killer movie. He wanted to do a procedural movie, so in this case it dealt with newsroom and police procedures rather than dwell on the killings themselves. Everything portrayed in the movie was carefully fact checked and verified by input from actual victums. An example of this would be the killing of the taxi driver. Since no one was in the car to tell the filmmakers what happened, there was not dialogue and Vanderbilt let the radio provide all the exposition.
 
Hey Blaine, I signed up for that screening and got in and then they sent me an email saying there was a system error and they were reneging on their confirmation... :angry:
 
tommyinla said:
Hey Blaine, I signed up for that screening and got in and then they sent me an email saying there was a system error and they were reneging on their confirmation... :angry:
Click to expand...
You should have called. I was confirmed +1....
 
I just finished this movie and I'm utterly stunned... if you think the ending of No Country for Old Men was unsatisfying then spare yourself a zero payoff.

Wow... completely invested in the movie and then it went bankrupt... although I guess with the facts, but I feel like bashing in the Red Box.
 
MattinSTL said:
I just finished this movie and I'm utterly stunned... if you think the ending of No Country for Old Men was unsatisfying then spare yourself a zero payoff.

Wow... completely invested in the movie and then it went bankrupt... although I guess with the facts, but I feel like bashing in the Red Box.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're were hoping to see, Matt. The case of the Zodiac was never solved. I think that the ideas put forth in this movie were really well supported by the facts of the case. While they say they aren't taking a stand on who the Zodiac was, that's disingenuous because they really are letting you know who they think he was. Compare that to the totally enigmatic ending of No Country for Old Men (which btw, I loved) and I think you can pretty much come away from this and say, "Yeah, that was the Zodiac and that's why there haven't been any more killings in his name."
 
I've been thinking about these types of endings lately from a story perspective - they are abrupt, dark and unsatisfying. Is that a legitimate feeling to leave your audience with?

I tend to think it is, but only if the abruptness itself serves to underscore the message of the film. In No Country, it worked because the film is specifically about how there is no foreseeable reprieve from humanity's cycle of violence...The sheriff has a dream that carries a tiny glimmer of hope, and then - black.

Zodiac, I think, only succeeds (and I'm not sure it does) for the same reason. The movie has similar themes- the power of one evil man to destroy so many lives and drive his pursuers to madness...he's a vicious, unstoppable ghost. There's no happy ending. No ending at all really, aside from one last look at the ravaged lives of the characters who tried to find him. The ending doesn't, can't, tie anything up because the whole point of the movie is - sometimes things don't end the right way.

IMO, there's only so many times this bleak message can be played out. People don't mind occasionally visiting a cynical look at how lost humanity is, but deep down they'll always ultimately turn towards a more positive story that has at least some weak hope for the future.
 
wow, I didn't think the endings were similar at all. Not to mention that the "lore" of Zodiac is that they DID find the guy, even though he got away. The ending to Zodiac was confirmation that Greysmith was right. I didn't think it was abrupt or unsatisfying at all.

to each there own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top