Zodiac

[Monotreme]

(David Fincher, 2007)

After a 5-year hiatus during which he returned to his television roots directing commercials, David Fincher is back and it looks like his past few years of experimentation with digital photography have paid off – with Zodiac, Fincher delivers what is easily his most satisfying work since Fight Club, and what is definitely one of the finest and most unique films of his career.

And by unique I am in particular referring to the word in relation to all of Fincher’s other work, and not necessarily in relation to other films in the genre, for example. If all of his previous works, namely Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, and Panic Room are style-driven films, in Zodiac Fincher employs what is by far his most restrained direction and tone to date. And it works solely to his advantage. I know that many people will discredit me for saying so, but I have always had major problems with Fincher as a director. It was my impression, especially upon viewing the extra features of the Fight Club DVD, that Fincher is far more interested in style and his films’ unique visual style and look that sometimes this comes before the story in his mind. This is all the more apparent when comparing Fight Club and Panic Room. Both are films utilizing Fincher’s unique visual style, and yet the major difference in the quality of the scripts of both films has a direct impact on their overall quality. It is my opinion that Fincher’s disregard to his films’ stories and characters allows the quality of the story to fully dictate the quality of the film. Which is why Fight Club, based on Chuck Palahniuk’s brilliant book, is a modern masterpiece, while Panic Room, with its generic and simple script that doesn’t go into much detail and utterly lacks character, came out sleek and stylish but simple and generic.

But in Zodiac, Fincher does something that he hasn’t yet achieved in any of his other works: he engages himself in the story. And what a fantastic story it is. Viewing this, one has no problem seeing where Fincher and screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker drew from to make Se7en. But the clear and present difference between the two films is that, as sleek, engaging and entertaining as Se7en is, it’s nothing more than entertainment. We all know that in the real world a criminal investigation never lasts for such a short period of time as a week. Se7en also engages itself in your usual run-of-the-mill Hollywood storytelling techniques – young rookie detective teams up with old, edge-of-retirement detective for one last case and the whole story ends in a dramatic showdown. Quite on the contrary, Zodiac takes the far more realistic angle. One could even say that it is the quintessential crime investigation film – an epic story spanning over 3 decades and still not meeting a completely final resolution. There is no dramatic peak. The move constantly jumps weeks, months and even years forward in time. The justice system is a slow, bureaucratic process. Not everyone gets to do what he or she wants and how he or she wants to do it. And within all the facts and suspects and leads and investigations, Fincher even has time to find the root and heart of his main characters. He chooses wisely not to indulge in any exposition for the characters – we learn about them, about their lives, their mannerisms and their clockwork as the movie progresses.

The acting is absolutely superb all around. Jake Gyllenhaal, who has already sealed his place as one of the most promising young actors with Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead, delivers a restrained and un-showy performance. The same goes for Mark Ruffalo, Chloe Sevigny and many of the other principal cast members. They all achieve what is most difficult for an actor to achieve: they disappear into their characters, just as Fincher disappears into the film’s plot and story. The one real standout, as usual, is Robert Downey, Jr. His role in this film is added to a series of recent film roles of his that just further and further fuel my adoration towards him. He is quick, witty, hilarious and irresistible to watch, while also managing to take these characteristics so easily identifiable with him and applying them to his character. It’s no wonder he’s one of my favourite actors.

In terms of style, although Fincher directs this with restraint that’s not to say that the film completely lacks it. Fincher and cinematographer Harris Savides utilize natural but highly stylized lighting. Fincher’s camera still manages to capture beautiful shots, and the use of digital video allows the night sequences to show up better and crisper than they possibly could on film, considering the use of natural lighting and deep focus Fincher employs. But the real achievement in the film is Fincher’s restraint; his ability to give the film a stylish and sleek look without ever letting the cinematography to become so showy that it just completely takes over.

In all the film has very high production value on all the technical planes. Fincher utilizes the very best set and costume design work to accurately recreate the time periods, and his perfectionist nature makes sure to see to every last detail. A soundtrack of pop songs is also utilized fantastically to recreate the periods, and in all Fincher’s relentless attention to detail pays off well. Of course his direction is greater than ever and perhaps more dominant here than in any of his films – the recreations of the Zodiac murders are ominous and chilling to the bone while Fincher avoids using any cheap tricks.

I have thought about it extensively and I just can’t see why this film performed so poorly at the box office. Perhaps it was the bad choice of a release date – in a time slot usually reserved for the studios’ shameful failures and holdovers from the previous year’s Oscar hopefuls, perhaps the movie going audience wasn’t ready for an unprecedented movie such as this one. Taking notes directly from Alan J. Pakula’s All the President’s Men, Fincher manages to create with Zodiac a long and epic film based extensively on exposition, dialogue and phone conversations, featuring a murder case so puzzling it still leaves you asking questions and trying to follow leads after the movie is over, that despite all that remains relentlessly entertaining. A taught thriller, a fantastic story and script and brilliant execution from Fincher, this is the best work he has brought us in a long time, and so far probably the best movie of the first half of the year.

RATING: 8.5/10.

[bigred760]

Here's the review I wrote back in March:

My main problem with this movies is the fact that it's two and a half hours long. C'mon; nothing about the story and events made me feel that they needed a running time that long. A lot of the movie was repetitive, dull, or simply unnecessary. But I'll tell you, those that weren't, were pretty freakin' good.

The main thing that kept me interested in the flick were the performances, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo. They're obsession and determination to catch the psycho were not only well acted but well directed. I really felt for them as they were determined to find out who the SOB was. And I think it was because of them that the somewhat lack of closure in that the killer was never caught didn't bother me that much. The presentation in who they thought it was and why was pretty much good enough for me. And I credit the two actors with that. You'll notice that I didn't mention Robert Downey, Jr. in any of this, mostly because I didn't think he added much to the story. He might've been a major character in real life, but I didn't see it in this movie. And kudos to Anthony Edwards on the rug. No, this movie belongs to Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal; they delivered the goods.

Of course the directing is superb; it's freakin' David Fincher. His dark and moody style of filmmaking goes perfect with the story of the real life serial killer (hell, it worked for Se7en). Dark shadows, that yellow tint, and just the way the cinematography seems to be part of the every scene really blends the movie together. I love that about him.

My biggest beef with the movie is its running time; I did start to feel the movie drag on after a bit and started to wonder if it would ever end. Everything else about the movie is well done: the performances, the directing, etc. I don't think this is Fincher's best work, but it's definitely got his signature all over it.

[Bloody_Knife]

Excellent acting, excellent directing, great script. David Fincher's "Zodiac" was definately a must see. Jake Gyllenhaal stars in this movie along with Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downy Jr. This movie is great. It basically follows the Zodiac killings from 196(6?) to I believe 1981. But the timeling goes along forever and basically follows up to today.

Instead of buying this, three weeks ago, i bought "The Number 23" which is a big mistake. Not saying The Number 23 wasn't any good, because that movie was very good also. But "Zodiac" goes into depth so much and it is such an interesting movie to watch.

I did have my regrets buying it before I watched this, because reading it, i suspected it to be another version of "The Black Daliah" which i can say that i did not like at all. But, fortunately, "Zodiac" was nothing like that at all. It had me drawn right into the movie with an opening scene that gives the entire movie this creepy atmosphere the rest of the way through.

There is some humor, not alot, little funny things that randomly happen right out of the blue, but the movie is not a comedy at all. This is definately Fincher's second best work (in my opinion). I think Fight Club is better, but the zodiac is Very good, I'm changing my top ten, because this definately belongs in it.

If you are a die hard Zodiac fan and know everything about him... wait to buy the DVD because there was a preview in the "Preview" section on the menu that says a special edition 2 disc DVD with all the files and comemntaries on the movie are in it, coming in 2008. So give it a rent, then if you really really like it like i did, don't go out and buy it at wal-mart like i did, save your money for the special edition DVD ocming sometime in 2008.



I give "Zodiac" a 10/10. I don't give alot of movies a 10 (The Shawshank REdemption, Pulp Fiction) and this one is a keeper in my collection, maybe I'll sell it to get the special edition, though.



10/10

[ilovemovies]

Zodiac, the latest from Se7en and Fight Club director David Fincher, is another home run for Fincher. Even now, in August, it still remains the best film of 2007. Yes, it's a long movie, but it's hypnotically compelling and fascinating and gripping. Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic and he's supported by an outstanding supporting cast including the ALWAYS great Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, who likewise is also starting to become one of my favorites, Anthony Edwards, Chloë Sevigny, Dermot Mulroney and the terrifically creepy John Carroll Lynch who was the police's prime suspect as the zodiac killer but were never able to prove it.

It's an endlessly watchable movie and is a near masterpiece. Love it.

8/10

[electriclite]

In the age of CSI, Bones, Crossing Jordan, Court TV Forensic Files and a long unending list of forensics shows, the public receives a daily helping of all the gory details (real or made up) of modern and elder, police investigation. You have more people discussing DNA evidence, autopsy results and hair fiber analysis at the watercooler more than they did 3 years ago. Into this forensic savvy world David Fincher’s new film, Zodiac arrives. And it seems to be entering into it with a handicap it either isn’t aware of or doesn’t want to admit exists.

The film is of course, based on the book of the same name by Robert Graysmith, a former cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle during the time of the infamous Zodiac killings in the early 70’s. The film follows his personal experiences of following the case at first by proxy of the newspaper executives who receive correspondence directly from the Zodiac killer, and then eventually his own personal, obsessive crusade to figure out the puzzle of who really is the Zodiac killer.

So its David Fincher, a sadistic, mysterious serial killer and the moody seventies. Should be riveting right? Eh… not so much.

Information and the collection of it can be a very engrossing and entertaining thing for some people. (I count myself as a proud info junkie, ) So much so that the very goal of catching a killer can be left as an aside, as long as the procedures to try and catch them are intriguing. But when filmmakers try to make movies about it they usually end up making it something the audience is dragged along though as they wonder whether they'll catch the guy, rather than involved in. Which is fine if you’re not already aware that they never do catch the Zodiac Killer. Then you’re just left in your seat wondering what are you supposed to care about?

Characters? Barely.

So much time is spent moving through the major benchmarks in the history of the Zodiac investigation that there isn’t much time to develop a believable life for the people who inhabit the story. The film runs through the some of the major milestones of Robert Graysmith’s life like a cross country trip with quirky tourists traps that sit along the highways of the Midwest: Interesting enough to mention but not worth stopping to get a better look at. The rest of the characters are written like squatters in a very expensive piece of property. Graysmith is apparently a single parent at the beginning of the film and a two-time divorcee by the end, which is directly related to his obsession to with the Zodiac case. But the problem with this isn’t just the information gap between these two periods, it’s the gap between his character and me giving a damn.

The coolest thing about Mark Ruffalo’s character is that he was whom Steve McQueen based the Bullitt character off of and that he likes Animal Crackers. There’s that quirkiness again.

Robert Downey Jr’s character makes better use as an example of the progressive effects of alcoholism on the human body and wardrobe, than as a full-fledged character.

So if you don’t really have any engrossing characters to follow, and you’re a true crime thriller documenting a case where the killer isn’t caught, then what makes you any better than the crime procedurals I can see on my TV without having to pay $10+ and deal with hecklers (which I did)?

Feature film doesn’t feel like the right medium for this type of story, its far too constricting because of time and the demands of a film studio. Had it been a television mini-series on HBO, Fincher may have been able to spend more time with his characters’ lives and inner workings instead of just using them as chess pieces that move arbitrarily forward for the sake of hitting historical landmarks.

There are more than enough crime stories and procedural shows for people to get their macabre rocks off. If Zodiac likes to think its on a higher level than these types of productions because of big name actors and a talented director, than truly the fog is thicker in the producers’ minds than the one that permeates through the storied San Francisco landscape.