Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Mar 5, 2007 1:49:20 GMT
Zodiac David Fincher 2007Meticulous and thoroughly enjoyable, as Fincher once again brings predictably perfect direction. It may be a period piece, but he couldn't resist the urge to throw in two notable segments which make heavy use of CGI, both of which seem out of place but are nevertheless memorable. Gyllenhaal, Downey Jr, and Ruffalo all have their moments to shine, and the music selections are all prime choices. Although for me, the film's defining quality was the consistent level of attention given to the costume and set changes that accompany a storyline that spans twenty-plus years.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 5, 2007 1:53:22 GMT
I'm really looking forward to this, but it keeps getting pushed the fudge back. It's now set for a May 18th release here.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Mar 5, 2007 4:22:23 GMT
I'm truly amazed at how much I loved this film. What were some of it's flaws to you, mistamista? For me, it's easily one of the best I've seen this decade.
And, not to mention, probably the best use of a song in any film ever, that being Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man". I really can't get over this film.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Mar 5, 2007 5:42:08 GMT
I really didn't have any major problems at all. Deft direction and performances all around. I actually told my friend that I gave it 2 stars out of 5 and he also seemed to be under the impression that meant I thought it was bad. I hand out 2 star rankings to films that I do in fact like.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Mar 5, 2007 7:30:32 GMT
Wow I knew I knew Arthur Leigh Allen from someplace. Norm Gunderson from Fargo, how about that.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Mar 19, 2007 1:31:21 GMT
I saw this film again today, and was still blown away by it. It must have been from spending my childhood in front of the TV watching "Unsolved Mysteries", but I am completely obsessed with this film, to the point where it altered my film viewing for two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Mar 19, 2007 1:33:35 GMT
I want to see this so god damn much.
I'm going to try and aim to get into the cinema to see this and 300 this week.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2007 1:55:04 GMT
I want to see this so god damn much. Please don't.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Mar 19, 2007 2:37:23 GMT
I want to see this so god damn much. Please don't. Why?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Mar 19, 2007 2:53:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Mar 19, 2007 3:05:00 GMT
Ah, I just saw the Fincher thread, though this confuses me.
"and has no effect on my life or anybody else's."
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Mar 19, 2007 20:10:58 GMT
What about the actual Zodiac killer? He has to feel somewhat accomplished/effected.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Mar 19, 2007 21:28:31 GMT
You're right, I do actually.
DUN DUN DUN DUN.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 1, 2007 2:32:12 GMT
ZodiacDavid Fincher 2007 USA A serial killer terrorises California in the 60s and 70s, teasing both the police department and the Media.
Nothing short of impressive, in concept and in execution. Fincher seems to have a wide vocabulary of filmmaking tools, and, perhaps more importantly, the confidence to employ them, for various means. This is a deep, intelligent and convincing delve into subjective verisimilitude, with not only shifting character identities, but a self-conscious nod to how the film has come to be made: the author of the book from which it is adapted remarks at one point, "I'm thinking of writing a book", and, years later, we see it as a bestseller on shelves at an airport. The viewer, like everyone else inside the film, has, at the end of it all, no real concrete idea of who the Zodiac killer is. The one difference, however, is that we're viewing events not as victims, but as viewers to a manipulated narration of events. Fincher knows this; the opening is incredibly tense, frightening and finally shocking, as we see it through the eyes of the boy, the killer's first victim (in the film if not real life); later, when we revisit this first murder, we "watch" it again (mentally, because we're not shown it) through the girl's eyes, since it is revealed or supposed that she knew who the killer was. To go through the film scene-by-scene identifying all the different gazes through which we identify with the film's meaning would take far too long (though it would surely be beneficial to the appreciation of how immensely intelligent it is), but a few points to note: the point at which Gyllenhall's obsessed cartoonist has come to the foray of investigations is the point at which the actual killings are far in the past (both in story time, which is years, and narrative time, which is hours) and the identity of the killer is at its most obscure and elusive (because of all the endless details and clues cluttering up the narrative, and the emphasis on basic demarcations such as handwriting and fingerprints). There's one scene, in which he is persuaded down into the basement of an elderly man's home, who began the scene as a possible witness and before descending rapidly into prime suspect - he hasn't really, of course, but it's constructed, like the rest of the film, so that we view the film through a certain character's psychological state, and so when he turns off the basement light, all sorts of things are suggested. Soon after, alone at home, Gyllenhall hears his back door open, and the moving shadow on the wall takes on an almost expressionistic effect in creating meaning, in this case the absurd paranoia of his character - but for a title at the end, we might even doubt whether he received anonymous, heavy-breathing phone calls at all. There's one moment, too, early on, which shows somebody who we assume to be the killer, shown with the non-diegetic phone call of him informing the police of another killing - it seems out-of-place in a film about an unsolved murder spree, but it's decidedly clever, in further mystifying the entire case in (fictional) retrospect. Fincher employs his usually smooth pans, tracks and shot-to-shot transitions as well as proving how far ahead of most others he is at CGI - some of the period reconstructions are flawless and beautiful, including a birdseye-view tracking shot of a taxicab on its way to murder, and a gorgeous establishing shot of the Golden Gate Bridge - again, even if this time the city is specific and not anonymous (like in Seven), he is very, very effective in evoking location. At 160 minutes, its duration belies the discipline with which it has been made: every direction it takes, be it a cut, shift in gaze or narrative thread, a pan or a track, seems motivated.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 3, 2007 23:03:42 GMT
Did anybody know about this film? I certainly didn't. You can watch it here. It's pretty similar, to be honest. Nowhere near as good, though.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 20, 2007 0:42:00 GMT
I adore this film. Riveting, elegant, agonizingly frustrating, exhaustive and exhausting.
This proves Fincher is more than just a stylist.
Graysmith's visit to the hardware store just to look Lee in the face is dramatically masterful; resignation as climax.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 20, 2007 9:01:12 GMT
You watched it again? It's still my best of 2007, though it faces tough competition in the coming weeks.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 20, 2007 21:31:45 GMT
Yeah, the one scene I still don't get is the one with the creepy-as-fuck theater owner. What is the meaning of that?
|
|
|
Post by Valenti on Dec 20, 2007 21:33:14 GMT
Just rented this movie.
Might put in my first proview in months.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 20, 2007 21:42:21 GMT
(In response to a deleted message):
Yeah...
I thought I'd missed something the first time, but it's a hugely loaded scene that isn't referenced again.
|
|