| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 09:51:04
If anyone knows how to unravel a thriller and follow its strands to a thrilling conclusion it ought to be David Fincher. With Zodiac, he doesn't disappoint, but he does feel obliged to honour the documentary elements of this based-on-a-true-story 30-year hunt for a killer who may or may not have been caught - and that makes for a very long movie indeed. That it not only holds up in its own terms, but manages to keep you as interested in the case - as are the San Francisco police and the cartoonist-turned-author Robert Graysmith [on whose books the film is based] - testifies to Fincher's confidence as a director and story-teller. It also proves that a neat solution isn't the only way to resolve a tale of grizzly, inexplicable murder.
Real life, as we know, is structurally messy and that's why drama telescopes action in order to provide shape - which is what, for example, Don Siegel did in Dirty Harry, daring to name its killer Scorpio and providing a wish-fulfillment end to the killer's life, in other words fictionalizing a case which was at that time still headline news in San Francisco. It made for a taut thriller with resolution in spades.
With Zodiac Fincher's more interested in the nature of fear and its drivers, obsession and notoriety. The fact that the script tries to cram in all the salient points of Graysmith's series of books only adds to our visceral understanding of the process of justice. Dirty Harry and others of the genre pander to our desire for a justice cloaked in vengence. Zodiac proves that the judicial process may not always come up with answers, but it can provide a fascinating narrative.
You'll need to pay attention, this is not a movie that builds in popcorn or bathroom breaks where you can return to ask your companion "What did I miss?" and they can bring you up to speed with a concise whisper. Drop the narrative ball with this one and you'll find that a couple of years have elapsed.
Is it Fincher's best? Nope - good as it definitely is. Is it Gyllenhaals's best? Nope - good as he is, I do wish we'd seen more development in his character instead of just being told about it. In fact the acting throughout is pretty fine but undistinctive - except for the constantly surprising Robert Downey Jr [and, yes, I'm a big fan], you can easily think of others who'd have filled those roles equally well. That's not the fault of the actors, but of a script, as already noted, more concerned with process than personality. In theory, this shouldn't work. But it's Fincher who makes it. Like Graysmith he just won't let go, and at any point where we might even begin to wonder what time it is, he grabs us anew and we're right back there with him.
Technically, the film is wonderful, a masterly combo of sound, photography, editing, production design, and a dazzling stop-motion sequence of a skyscraper going up which eloquently says "time's passing." In fact whole decades change with the subtle relentlessness that makes them both recognizable and remarkable. It's great to see actors of the caliber of Anthony Edwards and Candy Clark who deserve more big-screen exposure. But above all, it's a pleasure to put yourself into the care of Fincher, a guide who is brave enough to go off-road and competent enough to bring you home - if not safely, then surely satisfied.
|
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Shiv |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 02:02:05
Having read Graysmith's books, I can see how the process, rather than personalities, would be a strong driving force. I saw an interview with Fincher where he said that he did not want to put the 'prime suspect' on trial - and convict him in the film based on the certainty of many of the law enforcement people. The case was never concluded within the legal system.
I can see how this film might leave a feeling of dissatisfaction - but the fallout for the people involved is a big factor in the books. One of the main causes of this is the lack of coordination across the different police jurisdictions. The 'prime suspect' came up on their radars very early after the first killings - but this only came out in later years.
I am really looking forward to the film, and will be interested to see how perspectives differ based on prior knowledge of the case (as in, whether people had read the books or other information before seeing it). |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 05:25:21
I'm not going to go into much detail other than to disagree slightly with Baffy's final sentiments in that if anything the last sensation you'll feel after leaving the cinema is satisfied. I found it to be a long, complex and curiously uninvolving retelling of the Zodiac murders - it's extremely competently shot and performed, although it's a struggle to keep up with the investigation with time leaps of days to years occurring at an alarming rate, with dialogue delivered at a naturalistic mumble most of the time, particularly from Ruffalo, who never makes much of an impression. Ultimately the tale that Fincher is telling is speculative and desperately wants credibilty to make it definitive - there he falls down because he forgets to make the story thrilling or especially cinematic. It's always interesting, and occassionally, especially during the early murder scenes and one (ultimately rather annoying) red herring of a scene late on, quite gripping, but the foot is well and truly off the pedal for the most part. Given a bit more freedom to explore (dare I say it? - fictionalise it, sensationalise it a little) Fincher could have made a film worthy of comparison to his earlier serial killer movie which is a bona fide genre classic, but no such luck here. Constrained by accurately recreating Graysmith's entire experience like a big budget documentary just leaves you wishing the story could have been a bit more exciting in the last ten years. All we're left with is the fallout of people obsessed with the unknowable truth, but those characters thinly drawn for the sake of the hectic earlier investigation fail to interest, and left this viewer very far from satisfied. |
| Paddy C |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 01:18:26
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
If anyone knows how to unravel a thriller and follow its strands to a thrilling conclusion it ought to be David Fincher. With Zodiac, he doesn't disappoint, but he does feel obliged to honour the documentary elements of this based-on-a-true-story 30-year hunt for a killer who may or may not have been caught - and that makes for a very long movie indeed. That it not only holds up in its own terms, but manages to keep you as interested in the case - as are the San Francisco police and the cartoonist-turned-author Robert Graysmith [on whose books the film is based] - testifies to Fincher's confidence as a director and story-teller. It also proves that a neat solution isn't the only way to resolve a tale of grizzly, inexplicable murder.
Real life, as we know, is structurally messy and that's why drama telescopes action in order to provide shape - which is what, for example, Don Siegel did in Dirty Harry, daring to name its killer Scorpio and providing a wish-fulfillment end to the killer's life, in other words fictionalizing a case which was at that time still headline news in San Francisco. It made for a taut thriller with resolution in spades.
With Zodiac Fincher's more interested in the nature of fear and its drivers, obsession and notoriety. The fact that the script tries to cram in all the salient points of Graysmith's series of books only adds to our visceral understanding of the process of justice. Dirty Harry and others of the genre pander to our desire for a justice cloaked in vengence. Zodiac proves that the judicial process may not always come up with answers, but it can provide a fascinating narrative.
You'll need to pay attention, this is not a movie that builds in popcorn or bathroom breaks where you can return to ask your companion "What did I miss?" and they can bring you up to speed with a concise whisper. Drop the narrative ball with this one and you'll find that a couple of years have elapsed.
Is it Fincher's best? Nope - good as it definitely is. Is it Gyllenhaals's best? Nope - good as he is, I do wish we'd seen more development in his character instead of just being told about it. In fact the acting throughout is pretty fine but undistinctive - except for the constantly surprising Robert Downey Jr [and, yes, I'm a big fan], you can easily think of others who'd have filled those roles equally well. That's not the fault of the actors, but of a script, as already noted, more concerned with process than personality. In theory, this shouldn't work. But it's Fincher who makes it. Like Graysmith he just won't let go, and at any point where we might even begin to wonder what time it is, he grabs us anew and we're right back there with him.
Technically, the film is wonderful, a masterly combo of sound, photography, editing, production design, and a dazzling stop-motion sequence of a skyscraper going up which eloquently says "time's passing." In fact whole decades change with the subtle relentlessness that makes them both recognizable and remarkable. It's great to see actors of the caliber of Anthony Edwards and Candy Clark who deserve more big-screen exposure. But above all, it's a pleasure to put yourself into the care of Fincher, a guide who is brave enough to go off-road and competent enough to bring you home - if not safely, then surely satisfied.
I can't remember a film i've been looking forward to seeing as much as this one, Fincher is brilliant and so is Robert Downey Jr., can't wait to see it... as for Dirty Harry, "so much for due process.."! |
|
|
