| Author |
Message |
|
| yambu |
 Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:47 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
Joe Vitus wrote:
....Whatever you think of this movie as a movie, don't take Graysmith's theories, which this movie clearly follows, as the definative findings on the case. |
_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:09 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Thanks. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:59 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
Quote: Philip Baker Hall was in both movies
And what an underused actor he is. I like him alot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Trish |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:56 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 2438
Location: Massachusetts
|
Marc wrote: A recent film of some substance, CRASH, won the best picture Oscar and still only grossed 54 million bucks. Compare that to 450 million bucks for the Johnny Depp pirate movie. ZODIAC is a box office bust while the abysmal 300 rakes in the big bucks.
Double Ugh!!!!!!!! a film of some substance? yuck yuck yuck
and Zodiac was mostly boring - sorry - I do not see what you all are raving about - it failed ultimately - not enough character development, dry, dull dialogue, uncompelling , uninteresting villain - too bad with such fine actors starring(and supporting) in the film - Downey was completely wasted - despite the character initially appearing to be interesting and quirky
and Chloe - don't even get me started - watching her in this film was akin to watching paint dry
I'll agree that 300 was basically a nerdy fanboy's wetdream - simplistic, overcharged CGI love-in - still it didn't make me glance at my watch and yawn even a fraction as much as Zodiac did |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rod |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:18 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 2944
Location: Lithgow, Australia
|
| My my, Trish, you're in a kick ass frame of mind. |
_________________
A long time ago, but somehow in the future...It is a period of civil war and renegade paragraphs floating through space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Trish |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 2438
Location: Massachusetts
|
| I'm just baffled at all the praise |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Trish |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:59 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 2438
Location: Massachusetts
|
Marc wrote: FIGHT CLUB is the best American movie of the nineties. The notion that Fincher
has only recently achieved greatness with ZODIAC is bullshit.
especially since Fight Clubis 100 times superior |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Melody |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:27 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2242
Location: TX
|
Trish wrote: I'm just baffled at all the praise
As am I. Considering the love heaped upon Zodiac by Third Eye members, I have yet to read a review/analysis which would compel me to reconsider my opinion that Zodiac is unnecessarily dull and disappointingly boring. |
_________________
My heart told my head: This time, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:31 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Well, and what could? If the issue was a failure of logic, or a disappointment in an actor's interpretation, sure a well-reasoned argument might persuade you to look at the movie a different way. But if you're bored, you're bored. That's a gut response that no one can even challenge. How can someone talk you out of boredom? |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| yambu |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:37 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
| Angeline Jolie could. |
_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:59 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: Double Ugh!!!!!!!! a film of some substance? yuck yuck yuck
trish, I probably disliked CRASH as mush as you. But, compared to most Hollywood crap it had "some substance". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Trish |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 2438
Location: Massachusetts
|
Marc wrote: Quote: Double Ugh!!!!!!!! a film of some substance? yuck yuck yuck
trish, I probably disliked CRASH as mush as you. But, compared to most Hollywood crap it had "some substance".
as does all matter in the universe... but sometimes that substance is crap |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Melody |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:55 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2242
Location: TX
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Well, and what could? If the issue was a failure of logic, or a disappointment in an actor's interpretation, sure a well-reasoned argument might persuade you to look at the movie a different way. But if you're bored, you're bored. That's a gut response that no one can even challenge. How can someone talk you out of boredom?
Well, for example, I remember a recent discussion on Lawrence of Arabia which one of our members found boring, but most others did not. One scene was described as a three-minute static take of Omar Sharif on horseback, emerging as a tiny dot in the distant desert, slowing advancing toward the screen.
Had I not originally seen LoA on the big screen (thank you, Paramount Theater!), let's say I was watching it on TV, Sharif might not show up for a minute or longer, and I'd be scratching my head wondering what I was supposed to be looking at instead of my watch, what was the point, the desert is big & white, yawning, etc. But then reading the comment here that, indeed, Sharif is visible from the beginning of that scene, then that might entice me to revisit the film and cut Mr. Lean a break.
That's just one tiny example.
Believe me, I'm the last person who ever expected to be BORED at a David Fincher film. As soon as I hear a convincing analysis of the genius of Fincher's direction of Zodiac, I will seriously revisit the film. |
_________________
My heart told my head: This time, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote:
as does all matter in the universe... but sometimes that substance is crap
CRASH dealt with substance, racism, that is not crap. It just didn't do it very well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
I haven't been paying strict attention, but am I right in assuming that it's the men on this forum who are overwhelmed by this movie and the women have basically found it ho-hum? It seems like that is what's going on.
Have to say, I found the picture completely mesmerizing. Now that certain contretemps have been cleared up, I don't mind putting my 50¢ in:
It's great, easily the best movie I've seen since Chicago. I was somewhat let down on a nerd level because I'd read Graysmiths's book way back when, and there were some changes. More cinematic material could have been mined from it. Conversely, the book is a piece of yellow journalism that distorts facts and outright lies, so from a factual perspective the movie has it's problems, but this has nothing to do with the movie as a movie.
I think I liked Mark Ruffalo's performance best, but everyone was strong. It seems to me that when Robert Downey, Jr. plays the sort of role he plays here, he's going on automatic pilot. But he's so entertaining, I'm satisfied with the automatic pilot.
The look of the film is perfect. Too many movies with a late sixties, early seventies setting try to recreate Hair (the poster for which we see). I like that Fincher gave us so many Richie Cunninghams: straight laced guys in plaid shirts or button down suits. And, for some reason, I liked seeing all those cars. The choice of music was good too. Speaking of Hair, "When Easy To Be Hard" came over the speakers at the start, I laughed, though this is the one joke in the movie I don't think the other people in the theater got. (Well, I took it as a joke, due to the irony. But I guess it's not unlikely that the girl would find a romantic song on the radio when she was picking up the boy.)
My minor complaints are that I get no real sense of the city's fear. Also, I found the visual montage with the newspaper's banner turning into the outside of the actual building, and tons of articles thrown on the screen for a second rather pointless. The shot of Greysmith seeing the Zodiac's writing reflected everywhere similarly did more to make me aware of a visual trick than to help convey his obssession (particularly as it only happened once, rather than being a state he repeatedly returned to). I wish they had explained why the boy who survived the early attack had become a drifter. Was this a response to his experience, or had more things happened?
The movie remined me of early Spielberg in the way it balanced a terrifying experience with incidents of family life, and parent-child interaction. It was really touching to watch Gyllenhaal taking his kid to the bus. And not letting him get on at one point. Or debating in seconds whether his son gets to watch the news or not. The scene where he has his sons tracking the lunar landings was great.
The theater I saw it in (with Earl, by the way) was almost empty, but everyone who was there seemed to like it and respond well (laughter in the right places, for intstance). I hope the people who are seeing this movie do their best by word-of-mouth to improve its box office. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
