David Fincher's Zodiac

Well, I didn't mean to draw unnecessary parallels, but obviously each antagonist "gets away." Whenever that happens, the viewer can't help but feel a little unsatisfied. The question is, can the movie get away with that.
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That't the way I saw it. And let's not forget that Zodiac is based on true events.
 
What I meant to say in comparing the endings... is that neither movie had what I would consider to be a payoff for investing over 2.5 hours in a movie. It was an anti-twist... halfway through the movie they reveal who is obviously the killer... and then the movie lumbers along around that point right up until the end... at which point they tell you what happens next rather then showing you. I just felt that after watching a CSI type scenario ebb and flow like the ocean for over 2 hours that I'd get to see the tsunami hit... rather then read about it.

In NCFOM I felt the ending was satisfactory because of the rest of the story development... whereas Zodiac seemed to be building to something ever so slowly... and then the the story just kind of finishes in such a lackluster fashion.
Can you imagine watching a movie where you really hate the villain and then at the climax of the story where you expect something to happen... either the villain wins or loses... and instead you have the hero and the villain looking at each other... and that's the payoff.

It just didn't work for me. The movie wasn't bad... but it seemed laborious to get through... then for what I saw as a cheap ending... true story or not.

No biggie... 2.5 stars for me... B-
 
for me the movie was about Greysmith's obsession. By the last act, it's no longer about bringing the guy to justice, it's about about beating him at his game. It's about walking up to him at his place of business, looking the guy in the eye, and knowing THIS is the guy.

of course, by the end Greysmith still doesn't have the evidence or the support to get anyone locked up. But he knows... and that's what's important. That last scene is really audience service to prove that Greysmith was right.

dunno i thought it was pretty conclusive, personally, but i understand it's not for everyone.
 
I wish they hadn't sensationalized the murders since that part is speculation or artistic manipulation... if there would be no payoff. I thought his crimes were particularly disturbing in his process... which is why I had a hard time with the ending.

The young man and woman who are tied up... that guy had the biggest balls and MOUTH on the planet... combined with the smallest brain for a sociologist/psychologist... He basically DARES the Zodiac to do something to them as he nearly makes FUN of him. This scene really felt like a snuff film and I felt sick watching it. None of that made sense to me. Overall through most of the movie I was either disturbed or bored.

The little side-track with the theater guy... who says that the zodiac logo instantly reminded him of the film leader countdown... and then his basement and all that build-up... was like a little cherry on a mundane sundae... that was one of the few times where I felt "thrilled" by the movie... and yet it was such a cliche' scene that I knew it couldn't be going where it seemed.

Again... I didn't say it was a terrible movie... but for ME... a B-

The reason I saw it was that somebody mentioned it in the No Country thread... and put them in the same league... and that's the reason I got it... and that's also the reason I wanted to say my peace on it... because for me NCFOM is certainly in my top 10, if not top 5 of all time... and this felt like 2.5 hours of Cold Case meets CSI SanFrancisco... with an R rating.
 
and that theatre guy scene... was my least favorite scene in the whole movie. I would have cut it entirely.

And yeah, I'm not arguing with you, just enjoying the discussion.
 
As long as you're enjoying the discussion... I didn't mean to say that I thought that scene was that great either... that's why I'm saying I could have enjoyed it if it weren't so cliche... I felt like they had to introduce something like this because the "thriller" aspect of the movie between the hero and the villain took place almost entirely on paper. That's why I was saying that the theater-guy scene was a cherry thrown on (what was for me, and I realize I'm in the minority) a mundane movie. As in an attempt to dress up the lack of anything physical between the hero and villain... if not for that cliche' scene... all you really get is the two guys looking at each other and the killer's face goes from Lee the Helpful Hardware Man to Lee the Killer... For me the movie would have been served better by the book author narrating a cinema verite' scene of the guy having a heart attack as the police were banging on the door to arrest him... I don't know... just... something. Then as the viewer I could tell myself that the narrator got some satisfaction or conflict resolution. I felt like the film was building towards something that never happened... and yeah, I guess life can be like that... but I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching several movies put together for a whole... with 2 or 3 guys all working independently... and then handing 3 reels to an editor and telling him to figure it out.

From the moment that all the cops look at each other like "this is our guy" and they lambaste us with detail after detail about the guy... down the zodiac watch... and the flight boots... and then the movie continues on from that point. To me it's a sucky-story if the truth of the matter is that they really had the guy and couldn't arrest him.

It's like Indiana Jones finds the crystal skull and they show it to us and then he says "we can't get to that thing now but watch me work through seven years of community college and then at the end of the movie we'll go stare at it... and then walk away... ...yep, that's it alright."
 
Hey Matt, that's the scariest thing about the whole process. I remember when the Zodiac thing was happening and I'll tell you, it was scary as hell. This was a sick piece of work. I read Greysmilth's books and the movie was a faithful representation of them. The problem here was that there was no nice bow to wrap this thing up in because there was a lot of ineptitude along the way.

Personally, I was much more bothered by the ending of No Country for Old Men. That said, I like it more than Zodiac...as a whole. I just have to take NCfOM for the first 98% of the movie and write off the ending. With Zodiac, any other ending would have just been foolish as the killer was never caught. This movie posits that Greysmith discovered who Zodiac was and the killer was out of reach of the law. There are other theories of who the Zodiac was, but Greysmith's seems to hold the most water.
 
MattinSTL said:
As long as you're enjoying the discussion... I didn't mean to say that I thought that scene was that great either... that's why I'm saying I could have enjoyed it if it weren't so cliche... I felt like they had to introduce something like this because the "thriller" aspect of the movie between the hero and the villain took place almost entirely on paper. That's why I was saying that the theater-guy scene was a cherry thrown on (what was for me, and I realize I'm in the minority) a mundane movie. As in an attempt to dress up the lack of anything physical between the hero and villain... if not for that cliche' scene... all you really get is the two guys looking at each other and the killer's face goes from Lee the Helpful Hardware Man to Lee the Killer... For me the movie would have been served better by the book author narrating a cinema verite' scene of the guy having a heart attack as the police were banging on the door to arrest him... I don't know... just... something. Then as the viewer I could tell myself that the narrator got some satisfaction or conflict resolution. I felt like the film was building towards something that never happened... and yeah, I guess life can be like that... but I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching several movies put together for a whole... with 2 or 3 guys all working independently... and then handing 3 reels to an editor and telling him to figure it out.

From the moment that all the cops look at each other like "this is our guy" and they lambaste us with detail after detail about the guy... down the zodiac watch... and the flight boots... and then the movie continues on from that point. To me it's a sucky-story if the truth of the matter is that they really had the guy and couldn't arrest him.

It's like Indiana Jones finds the crystal skull and they show it to us and then he says "we can't get to that thing now but watch me work through seven years of community college and then at the end of the movie we'll go stare at it... and then walk away... ...yep, that's it alright."
Click to expand...

well I agree about the theatre guy scene, I also felt like it served no purpose but to "jazz it up", which as i said i didn't think was necessary in the first place. So yeah, stupid scene.

I guess where we differ is that I believe the STORY is about a man's obsession with trying to unmask an anonymous serial killer. it's not about his obsession to bring him to justice. And I, personally, felt the film did a good job of displaying the story in that context, which is why i presume I felt the ending did a good job of "wrapping it up".

What Greysmith wants is "to know the identity of the Zodiac killer". He works towards that goal, ultimately achieving it.

And so, to use your example, if they told the story of young Indy reading about the Crystal Skull and wanting nothing more than to be in it's presence, then I imagine it could be satisfying to him and us when he finally gets his chance to lay eyes on it, even knowing it will never be in his grasp.

Just my take...
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
I guess where we differ is that I believe the STORY is about a man's obsession with trying to unmask an anonymous serial killer. it's not about his obsession to bring him to justice. And I, personally, felt the film did a good job of displaying the story in that context, which is why i presume I felt the ending did a good job of "wrapping it up".

What Greysmith wants is "to know the identity of the Zodiac killer". He works towards that goal, ultimately achieving it.
Click to expand...


Thank you... I needed that.
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
I guess where we differ is that I believe the STORY is about a man's obsession with trying to unmask an anonymous serial killer. it's not about his obsession to bring him to justice. And I, personally, felt the film did a good job of displaying the story in that context, which is why i presume I felt the ending did a good job of "wrapping it up".

What Greysmith wants is "to know the identity of the Zodiac killer". He works towards that goal, ultimately achieving it.
Click to expand...
Dammit. Too succinct for my tastes...:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Just watched Zodiac, what a great film, probably the best movie of 2007 I've seen.

Fincher's best film, I'm sure lots of people can agree with me on that.

Wow, seriously astonished by that movie.
 
Seven still tops it for me (one of my favorite flicks ever) but Zodiac is definitely one of the best films I've seen this year.

Excuse me, last year ;)
 
fincher has and will never top seven, majority of the public ever since seven always say " well... I liked seven better"

sad but true

but IMHO I presonaly think seven is his best film yet, the story, the way it was shot, the film negative that was used, the mood lighting, everything in that film is great, I must have seen it about 70-100 times now in my life and I am 24
 
Not taking anything away from Seven, as I've seen it 2-3 times myself recently, I felt more impacted by Zodiac, because the fact that this is based off something that really happened.

Fincher did a great job with detail, lots of detail. Detail after Detail after Detail.

I hope it gets recognition with Oscars.

Still need to see more films that came out in 2007 to truly say it deserves Oscar recognition (like I'm the judge of that).
 
When I first watched Se7en, I wanted to jump out the window.

I recently re-watched the movie and almost did it...

I'm somewhat hesitant on watching it ever again.

But it's great, this Fincher dude is f*cking brilliant.

Fight Club is.... Fight Club, what more can I say.

The Game is one of the very few films that really tricked my mind. Real good :).

I'm looking forward to Zodiac.
 
you know that is weird, one of my top 5 favorite personal films is seven of course but when I watched fightclub and I keep watvhing it and I just dont like it, I really dont know why and I know its a good film, I dont know I just dont connect to the story maybe, to me seven and fightclub are the night and day I just donno :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top