My Thoughts on Zodiac (2007)…

Submitted by Standard_Rip9349 t3_ygfu9j in movies

Well, it’s very clear that my younger self must’ve had either a terrible attention span or was stupid enough to watch this at like 2 AM in the morning while taking Benadryl. But the reason I’m bringing this up is that when I first watched this, I fell asleep multiple times and the second time, I didn’t fall asleep but I just criticized the pacing of the film while also liking it.

However, in today’s time, I think this film is freakin’ timeless and near flawless. David Fincher is the perfect man to tackle this dense and disturbing topic that is… the Zodiac killer.

Fincher’s attention to detail and pulling the audience with just as much intrigue as Robert Graysmith himself by showing into each clue and having that intense ‘a-ha’ moment when you see said clue come back later on the film, adds so much to the experience that it just has to be seen to be believed. It’s an incredible look into real history with respect to the victims and investigators while also making a very competent and mature detective film.

It’s also really cool to see all three lead actors, who go on to be in the widely popular Marvel Cinematic Universe, show their acting chops on full display. Robert Downey Jr. is always incredible with his great charm and line delivery, and Jake Gyllenhaal plays the lead in a very engaging and empathetic way where you are with him the entire time he’s trying to find out who the Zodiac is. But for me, this is my favorite performance from Mark Ruffalo thus far. He doesn’t play the typical typecast normal guy/weirdo character he usually portrays, he actually adds some grit and urgency in his role. The rest of supporting cast with, of course, John Carroll Lynch being a great standout.

The pacing was my original big criticism of the film, but after watching this again, it actually makes a lot of sense with Fincher paced it this way, and I kind of enjoyed that it was a slow burner since the case itself was a slow burner. The cinematography is absolutely amazing and adds so much artistic nuance to the film, the score is solid, the writing is fantastic, and this has some of the best production design I’ve ever seen. Fincher and team did above and beyond to truly capture this time period correctly.

There’s only one nitpick I have, and that there’s a scene with Mark Ruffalo in the passenger seat of a car where the green screen is super noticeable. That’s all, though.

Overall, perhaps, I’ve treated this film too harshly in the past.

What did you guys think about this film?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

BravesFan252 t1_iu8by79 wrote

One of the best films in the last 20 years.

5

TronCurtain t1_iu8ens3 wrote

Stone cold classic. Awesome that you came around. For me, the pacing is everything in that movie. I've always liked slow narratives that span long periods of time, especially on a rainy day or whatever. Zodiac is certainly that, but the pacing plays an even deeper role because time is almost like a character in this movie. The story is of course not really about the Zodiac killer, but the lives of the men who tracked him, and the years it took away from them. So settling into that slow, deliberate rhythm is key to connecting with the main characters at the point in which they each give up. Graysmith being the longest holdout of course. You feel like you've really gone through multiple eras with him, and it makes the implications of the scene where he sees Arthur Lee Allen in the store so much more impactful. It's a beautiful screenplay.

The directing is great obviously, maybe his best looking film, and it's probably some of those actors' best performances. Ruffalo for sure. It's just a magnificent movie.

Also, Hurdy Gurdy Man.

3

Landlubber77 t1_iu8fmzz wrote

I rewatch this movie like twice a year. It's an emotional investment though. For example, I think I've fast forwarded the part with the Zodiac by the lake every single time but maybe twice. Lol it's too much.

It also really shows you the power of point of view in a movie, since everyone who watches it comes away from it with the impression that Arthur Leigh Allen must have been Zodiac. However according to the research, conventional wisdom at the time and even now was that it was someone else altogether. Arthur Leigh Allen is who Robert Graysmith zeroed in on in real life and the movie (based on his books) is from his point of view.

But this is 1B for me as far as Fincher movies go, with 1A being The Social Network. And I wouldn't be angry with anyone who wanted to switch the two.

3

TronCurtain t1_iu8fwlv wrote

>the part with the Zodiac by the lake

Probably among the greatest individual scenes in movie history. Devastating.

3

Original_Giraffe8039 t1_iu966gn wrote

My brother and I were squirming in our seats when we saw it in the cinema. Felt like I was the one being attacked it was that visceral

3

GypsyDishwasher t1_iu8hyta wrote

Every time I watch the Lake Berryessa scene, my chest tightens up. Despite the lack of blood that most knife scenes in film have, it's one of the more visceral. The one breathless grunt the guy lets out on the first stab is worse than the girl screaming in abject terror.

3

GypsyDishwasher t1_iu8hglb wrote

It has a wonderful 'real life' depiction of the toll obsession can take on a person. Travelling across the state. Recruitinging your kids help you research a serial killer before your wife takes them away. Visiting a police station in the middle of the night to beg to see a file. By the end of the movie, Gyllenhall even starts to look tired and sick but can't stop because " I need to know who he is. I need to stand there, I need to look him in the eye, and I need to know that it's him." And it makes for a great catharsis moment when he finally does.

​

Beyond that, I'll always say that using 'Hurdy Gurdy Man' to bookend the movie is one of the greatest uses of a popular music in film.

3

TronCurtain t1_iu9hnte wrote

Folks like to bring up the factual errors and omissions in Zodiac but it was never intended to be a history or expose of the killer. The core of the story is exactly what you described. It's about obsession. Where we choose to focus our intentions, and the consequences of neglect. ALA is our big suspect in Zodiac because that's who Graysmith and those guys spent years following. It's about them. John Carol Lynch is more or less a mcguffin in this movie, and his performance reflects that.

The movie does attempt to present events in a factual and methodical way, but these beats give us more of an insight into the days, months, and years our main characters were spending on this. And yes, a significant portion of the movie is used to recreate the murders as factually as possible, but I believe Fincher was just doing his due diligence whenever the facts were available. We don't see the murders because the movie is about the Zodiac killings, we see them because a) they're compelling and b) they give us a sense of the looming dread cast over that area in that time. Specifically over our main characters. There's usually some kind of audio that carries over from the end of the killing scenes to the next, suggesting this kind of omnipresent connection to their lives. Haunting and taunting them, especially Graysmith, while their lives slip by.

Then one day there he is. Robert gets his wish. He sees an old sad man in a store. And JCL gives Gyllenhaal that shit eating look. It's so perfect lol.

3

defalt86 t1_iu8flkn wrote

Amazing movie. One thing worth knowing tho, is it takes a very biased approach to the facts of the case. Experts don't even consider Allen a top suspect and the movie leaves out details that create doubt. The movie also completely ignores other top suspects, because it doesn't want you having any conclusion other then Allen did it.

This doesn't make it a bad movie, it's just important to remember that it's Hollywood.

2

Tongan-Fine t1_iu8hllb wrote

When this movie came out i was 14 and i thought nothing of it. Watched it again together with se7en years later and all i can say is Fincher is a master.

2

LatkaGravas t1_iu98bdr wrote

My favorite movie of that decade, and it isn't even close.

2

shoelala100 t1_iubig1p wrote

It’s one of them films we’re you don’t realise how highly u actually rate it till you realise it’s been a few days and your still thinking about it.

2

ReasonedBeing t1_iu8g1pu wrote

I wonder why there's been a recent outcry against portraying serial killers in movies. I have heard so much criticism of the Dahmer series, but not about this 2007 movie. Is it because we are living in woke times now?

−3

DickiesAndChucks t1_iu8x55e wrote

No, it's because Ryan Murphy is exploitative, has fetishized Dahmer as a misunderstood, hot, sexy gay by casting Evan Peters, and loves to indulgently linger on gore, grief, and trauma.

3

raptors661 t1_iuaf5x3 wrote

In every scene the Zodiac appears, he's portrayed differently and by a different actor. It doesn't glorify his violence or his character. Dahmer, on the other hand, does. Dahmer would have been better if it solely focused on the victims. You don't see Zodiac flashing back in time and showing lil Zodiac as a kid cutting up roadkill.

2

whitejesus2022 t1_iu8cttw wrote

I grew up in the Bay Area in the 70s. Thanks for triggering all the trauma, really wanted to re-live that.

−6