Zodiac

[AngelBaby]

I'm very happy Fincher is back.

This movie was amazing, an incredibly thorough depiction of the principals involved in the pursuit of one of the most baffling serial killers in American history.

Course if The Zodiac had waited until 2007 to start killing people, I say he gets caught inside a year. The movie impresses upon the viewer just how far homicide investigation and forensics have come since the late 60's early 70's.

[efilflah]

I wanna see it so bad.

I really like Fincher, he always maintains a slick visual style and he knows how to pace a movie.

[AngelBaby]

Be aware there are fewer of Fincher's visual stylings in this picture. He instead chooses to let the story be the star.

And as far as pacing... The movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but never really felt draggy to me. YMMV.

[efilflah]

As long as it's not pointless padding, I wouldn't care if it was 5 hours long.

[UncleMao]

You would if it was called Das Boot.

[efilflah]

I finally got around to seeing it, and I thought it was a decent movie, but I hate how being based on true events movies in this vein can seem somewhat, slightly deflated.

I love Fincher, and I had bad feelings that maybe he'd try and be a bit too stylish with the way he went about executing this film, given that it was pretty basic in structure, standard serial killer/crime thriller, but he was well restrained....or maybe a little too restrained.

Hollywood has a tendency to embelish a lot with "true to life" movies, to the point where they overdramatise the bits they can get away with, usually the middle act, but because they're limited to an ending that is documented and can't be changed, they lose momentum by the end and it feels inconsistent.

Fincher did a good job at trying not to embelish, at least from a technical / editing standpoint - the actual real life story I'm not too familiar with so I can't really comment on that. I liked the way it would just cut from year to year with little to no wind down or build up, giving the impression he was just sticking to the relevant documented facts, almost like a documentary, but with cinematic elements.

I didn't like the conclusion, but then I hate unsolved mysteries in general, which is why true to life movies aren't things I usually watch, because the ending has to be adhered to (or at least in most cases) and if that ending is unsatisfying then there's no escaping it, even if you dramatise it enough it's still going to disappoint, but Fincher did a good job of concentrating on the obssession angle of each character, which is what really kept me interested for this long ass film.

[Steampunk]

I watched this on a plane full of Koreans and Singaporeans.

[UncleMao]

A Singaporean just landed a role in The Dark Knight.

It's like a hamster just landed on the moon.

A green hamster

A green hamster with a robot trike.

A green hamster with a robot trike that can transform into a toaster.

[smash]

I finally got around to seeing it, and I thought it was a decent movie, but I hate how being based on true events movies in this vein can seem somewhat, slightly deflated.

I love Fincher, and I had bad feelings that maybe he'd try and be a bit too stylish with the way he went about executing this film, given that it was pretty basic in structure, standard serial killer/crime thriller, but he was well restrained....or maybe a little too restrained.

Hollywood has a tendency to embelish a lot with "true to life" movies, to the point where they overdramatise the bits they can get away with, usually the middle act, but because they're limited to an ending that is documented and can't be changed, they lose momentum by the end and it feels inconsistent.

Fincher did a good job at trying not to embelish, at least from a technical / editing standpoint - the actual real life story I'm not too familiar with so I can't really comment on that. I liked the way it would just cut from year to year with little to no wind down or build up, giving the impression he was just sticking to the relevant documented facts, almost like a documentary, but with cinematic elements.

I didn't like the conclusion, but then I hate unsolved mysteries in general, which is why true to life movies aren't things I usually watch, because the ending has to be adhered to (or at least in most cases) and if that ending is unsatisfying then there's no escaping it, even if you dramatise it enough it's still going to disappoint, but Fincher did a good job of concentrating on the obssession angle of each character, which is what really kept me interested for this long ass film.

Sorry for the late reply, I actually missed your comment halflifebackwardsdude.

This is very true to the real life events, including the anticlimatic nature of the thing. I thought Fincher did a fantastic job of this, as he underplayed the crimes just the right amount...and upsold the ... real ... crime... that our police agencies just weren't properly equipped to work multijursidictional.

Being born in 73, I was really too young to have the impact of this...however as a kid I do remember hearing about it, probably back in like 78, near the end. He really did keep the nation, mostly San Francisco in a total grip of panic. I thought Fincher held to that well, as you said, with the time jumps.

Watching this on screen, as opposed to reading Graysmith's book, I was drawn into the era: a newspaper with desk after desk sans computers; the dogged, over-drinking reporter; the consumed policemen. It was a very well made period piece.

I just rewatched it, in fact, a couple of weekends ago...still as interesting and as gripping as the first time around.

[efilflah]

This is very true to the real life events, including the anticlimatic nature of the thing. I thought Fincher did a fantastic job of this, as he underplayed the crimes just the right amount...and upsold the ... real ... crime... that our police agencies just weren't properly equipped to work multijursidictional.

True, you could tell by the way the characters were portrayed that they really were frustrated with the lack of co-ordination between departments.

Being ridiculously old, I was really too young to have the impact of this...however as a kid I do remember hearing about it, probably back in like 78, near the end. He really did keep the nation, mostly San Francisco in a total grip of panic. I thought Fincher held to that well, as you said, with the time jumps.

It's kinda strange actually, for such a long film, I am really trying to think what they could've done to save time, but I can't think of anything. Asides from a few small reiterative scenes, there really wasn't anything else to trim, and it wasn't as if you even noticed whilst watching it, which is a rare thing for a near 3hr movie.

Watching this on screen, as opposed to reading Graysmith's book, I was drawn into the era: a newspaper with desk after desk sans computers; the dogged, over-drinking reporter; the consumed policemen. It was a very well made period piece.

Yeh, like I said, I really think Fincher did a good job of building atmosphere and creating a believable setting to the point of it being almost documentary like, which must be difficult to do convincingly, so kudos to him.

I really hope he doesn't wait too long for his next movie, but long enough not to rush into another "Panic Room", I think he's proved with Zodiac that he's not just a gimmicky cinematographer sitting in a director's seat.