 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.170.178.75
Anyone see this one yet? I saw it last night and was pretty well absorbed by the mystery and the amazing circumstancial evidence that seemed to amount to nothing to the police on the case. It wasn't the best in terms of sheer dramatic entertainment, etc but it had its moments. I didn't know enough about the actual events to make an evaluation of the accuracy of the film but after reading a comparison, it was pretty close for the brief time a movie can occupy and especially for the actual physical resemblences of the characters to their real life counterparts.
Puzzles are interesting and challenging on several levels and forensic investigations sort of take that to a more phyisical level. When they are combined in a story such as this, it makes for the basis of a great mystery and I had actually hoped for the suspense to be a little thicker but it was better than most "TV" which I have seen recently.
Follow Ups:
Saw "Zodiac" a few weeeks ago. I thought the first half was strong but it kind of fizzled as it went on. Downey was good but Gyllenhall's always-adolescent look is a distraction. He reminds me of "Alfalfa". Both he and his sister were just kids with quirky looks and studio connections. (I really hate Hollywood nepotism but thats a different post).
I remember the public panic over the Zodiac Killer, but the film never really developed any of the tension or emotion necessary to pull the viewer in. There was little ironic drama in the film's conclusion. The art director, though, should get special mention. I had to really focus on the actors to convince myself it wasn't actually filmed in the 70s.
When you're circling the drain, it doesn't really matter whether you're spinning to the left or the right.
Gets off to a fast start, gets lost in a mirass of details on the way to becoming a fairly standard gum-shoe investigation.
The spell Zodiac cast over the public here is completely lost ... too many cops asking too many questions, methodically following up too many details and not generating enough drama.
It does jump up and bite you, once in a while, even after as your interest begins to wane.
Even so, I'd have to say it was worth the $4.99 I paid to watch it in hi-def.
DePalma should have made this one.
...well acted and surprisingly compelling given that they never identified the killer definitively.
Guess people didn't like seeing a movie where the bad guy doesn't get caught.
the fear of the city nor the fierceness of the monster himself.
By making a "star" out of the reporter, the film mangled itself, irremediably.
Downey was miscast: he's made a career out of being ironical: he's not very believable as a straight guy doing a straight job, certainly not in this one, anyway.
The rest?
Forgetable.
A lack of suspense in a film about Zodiac?
Oops...
...the film is a true story, written by the reporter - who is the lead character in the film.
"the fear of the city nor the fierceness of the monster himself."I do not think this was the point of the film. I think the point of the film, and the book from which it was drawn, was to show the investigation from the police perspective. The cartoonist wrote the book from which the film was made, and in an interview he stated that the film was very accurate relative to the police work. He also stated that the director did a lot of work on researching everything the police did, and everywhere they went, and all the evidence they accumulated.
The film could have focused on the fear of the city, and then you could complain that it did not show enough about the investigation. On the other hand, the film could have done both, been four hours, and then you could complain it was too long, and tried to do too much.
The film you are looking for is Spike Lee's "Summer of Sam", which was entirely about the hysteria surrounding the crimes. It is not a better, or worse, film because it was about the hysteria rather than the investigation. Simply a different film.
"By making a "star" out of the reporter, the film mangled itself, irremediably."
Other films have covered the same subject matter. This is probably the first time that you learned there was a cartoonist, not a reporter, who became obscessed about the killer, to such an extent that he was willing to sacrifice his marriage and his career to find the killer. The film likely provided you information you did not have before seeing it, and so it is safe to say that the film added to your knowledge base, I presume a good thing. And let's not forget that this cartoonist's work work led to a pretty good affirmation that the police originally had the right guy. Who else should have been the "star."
"Downey was miscast: he's made a career out of being ironical: he's not very believable as a straight guy doing a straight job, certainly not in this one, anyway."
"Ironical?" In any event, I must again disagree here. He is a crime reporter, and apparently has demons. Whether those demons caused him to become a crime reporter rather than a criminal, or him being a crime reporter caused the demons, who knows. I suspect that his deterioration into substance abuse hell was because he could not solve the crime, or even get a handle on who it was, when he would strike, etc. He was hardly a straight guy. And, to top it all off, the newly hired cartoonist seems to have more insightful answers. If anyone can play a depressed substance abuser, it is Downey.
"A lack of suspense in a film about Zodiac?"
There is no suspense, because we all know what happened, and an idea, maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt, but a pretty good idea nevertheless who done it.
If you take the film strictly as a police procedural, it was a very good film. If you were looking for "suspense", "art", or anything else, then you watched the wrong film. Why blame the film and its makers because you were looking for something they never intended to deliver? Do you yell at the hardware store attendant because they do not carry Beluga caviar? Because the author of the book, and subsequently the film makers decided upon a different focus, does not make it a bad film.
...because they do not carry Beluga caviar?
Now, that I would like to see preserved on film! ;-).
describe "Silence of the Lambs," similarly, couldn't one? I mean, wasn't Clarice's pursuit a key piece?
"Z" was boring, that's my main gripe. I didn't fault it for not making the city's fear a centerpiece: it didn't convey it at all.
The reenactments, excepting the first one, lacked any suspense or tension. I'd say poor direction.
It wasn't hideously bad or anything. Now, if you want a far superior film which goes down the same road, see the Korean masterpiece, "Memories of Murder."
I'd be very interested to hear your opinion.
"Memories of Murder."Not yet seen.
"Z" was boring."
Maybe. But to who? I know some people who are bored going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Or watching a well played chess match. Or watching poker on television. I happen to like police procedurals, which is how I evaluated this film.
"describe "Silence of the Lambs," similarly, couldn't one? I mean, wasn't Clarice's pursuit a key piece?"
She did pursue him. That does not make it a police procedural. I think a police procedural is a film for which the plot or purpose of the film is to depict the investigation. "Silence" certainly shows her pursuit, but does not show her doing research (beyond conversing with Hanibal), interviewing witnesses, etc. I think of Silence as a psycholigical thriller, in which we are learning with Clarice as she is investigating.
On the other hand, with Zodiac, we know all the answers. Indeed, we know more than the characters in the film, and so there is nothing they can teach us about the events. The only thing a layman does not know is how they investigated the crimes, and the conclusions they drew, or failed to draw. I found Silence of the Lambs entertaining, but hardly educational. Thankfully.
a
I thought it was an average film myself but did hold you well enough not to be boring. I totally agree about the unbelievable scenarios and lack of suspense. There was some suspense but it wasn't as gripping nor as frightening as it should have been. Overall it was not a hit and didn't really deserve to be based on the action. It wasn't a bad documentary though as it was pretty close to what those willing to say about the actual case are saying. The downside is that it isn't a documentary...
I don't agree with the casting bit though. That was a little harsh as they did good jobs for their parts. I thought Downey was one of the best played parts. He wasn't supposed to be straight and was in fact quirky, eccentric, and stoned most of the time towards the end of his ordeal and the movie. The main character in this film was the cartoonist-turned reporter-turned author. You don't have to like that fact, it's just the way the movie was written. Two hours doesn't allow for a broad range of perspectives and it was mainly his that you see through. Not a bad choice really as he was the one most obsessed and who did not give up the hunt. Besides, nothing much else was on ;-).
Agreement. I unnecessarily was hard on Downey.
that was unfortunately overlooked.
The case was solved long ago. Not wrapped up tight, but as clear as these things ever are. That's why he don't kill anymore. He died in 1993.
many such suspects, dui, and if you'd read a book or two you'd see each author had his favorite ones and a bunch of info which "conclusively!" proves he is the one!
Fact is, it's a mystery, just like Jack the Ripper.
Massive amounts of resources couldn't find him over a many year period. If they'd suspected this guy, they'd have done a lot more about it. The dept. just wants to assuage people's fears that they're incompetent or were beaten by a guy who taunted them for years.
find everything but a signed confession ( bomb materials, etc. ) that show they had their man; then, err, his DNA doesn't match; which gets them neatly off the hook for not bagging him while he was still alive ( ? )
Grins
Allen had the very bizarre habit of asking others to lick envelopes for him. Ever heard of anyone doing that?
And here I thought that Clint Eastwood killed him in 1971.
Some of us lefties did not like the assumption the Zodiac ("Scorpio" in Estwood's movie?) was attributed to being a left wing nut by Don Siegel, and Eastwood!!! That's why Eastwood's next movie tried to even the score by making the cops the bad guys. I think the best scene in that movie is the end with the badge throwing and that nice music on the electric piano, very moving.
Eastwood of course is known for the inclusion of jazz and jazz related music into many of his films and has been lauded by the jazz community for same. The composer for Dirty Harry" was Lalo Schifrin, who interestingly enough also did "Zodiac".
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
