The "Retro Game Reviews" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
WARNING: very minor spoilers below.
David Fincher's "Zodiac" has been a long time in the making, Fincher himself spending 18-months reading and examing case files of the Zodiac killer's purported crimes and aiming to create a work that was highly accurate to the actual events themselves. After the agonising 2-and-a-half month wait for this film to reach our shores following the US release, it's finally here. On the heels of overwhelmingly positive reviews, yet with detractors however claiming the film drags its feet and offers an unsatisfying conclusion, does Fincher deliver the goods again as he did with Se7en and Fight Club?
A resounding "yes" is in order, to say the least. I don't want to pre-emptively give the film too many accolades, but I don't think it'd be unfair to say that Zodiac is one of the most visceral, realistic and engrossing serial killer fares ever committed to screen. All of the literature I've ever on the Zodiac killer was brought kicking and screaming to life in a project that I feel will be considered a future classic by those who just give it a chance. If you're expecting a thrills-per-second, explosion-filled twist-fest, steer well clear. This film is above any kind of reproach to that effect, and instead relies on a tight script, utterly flawless direction, and a historical dilligence that I've not heard of previously.
From the word "go", this film just sweeps you off your feet, grabs you by both hands and won't let go for 158 minutes. The opening scene, with Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" is undoubtedly one of the most thrilling and exciting opening scenes I've witnessed in a long time. The film wastes no time in building things up, and goes straight for the jugular - about three or four minutes into the film, the Zodiac has splattered his first victims in a hurried and violent attack. The aforementioned song truly exaggerates the intensity to a fever pitch, and it was from this moment that I knew that this film would be something special.
What really struck me about "Zodiac" is Fincher's seeming accuracy to the period of the late 60s/early 70s that the film is largely set in. The cars, the clothes, and namely the soundtrack all exude that vibe brilliantly, and it was a true joy to watch. Furthermore, the opening Warner Brothers logo is the classic version used from the 70s, and this kind of dilligence is what makes Fincher one of the best contemporary directors today.
The basic setup following the first murder on July 4th, 1969, is that the killer then sends a letter to the San Fransisco Chronicle, announcing himself as "The Zodiac" and playing innumerable games with both the paper and the police. Cue Robert Graysmith - a cartoonist for the paper who takes a curious interest in the case. This interest very slowly seems to become an obsession, with Graysmith wanting to look the killer in the eyes and know it's him. Through all of the murders, and 2500 suspects interviewed, the film is ultimately, by its climax, a film about obsession, and how the case destroyed a number of lives of those surrounding it. As the film's tagline itself states - "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer", and by the end of the film, this rings completely true.
The real Robert Graysmith wrote the book on which the film was based, and the film takes the same stance as Graysmith does, proposing who the real Zodiac killer was, yet still giving the audience room to draw their own conclusions. Rather then overtly forcing the audience to believe any one thing, the evidence, whilst intrinsically gathering some of Graysmith's own views, are ultimately laid down in front of the viewer for them to decide for themselves. It is this means by which some have deemed the climax unsatisfying, but if you step back for a second and imagine that - a) this was a real case and b) Fincher is attempting to tell things like they are, then you should realise that this is above providing an unmasking and a quick clean-up job to a terrorising boogeyman.
As mentioned earlier, the direction here is truly arresting. Whilst I didn't particularly see the shooting on HD as being particularly effective (and as this is essentially a "period" piece, it seems somewhat of an odd choice when compared to shooting on film), there are some absolutely golden shots here. Any time Fincher focuses on the Golden Gate Bridge, one could easily take one of these frames and mount it on their wall as a piece of art. Fincher rarely wastes a frame, yet I just wish that he lingered more on the Bridge at times. There's also this brilliant shot early on where Fincher stalks a cab from above moments before the murder of Paul Stine that is unforgettable. Fincher truly uses his shots to convey a foreboding mood, particularly in the much-lauded "basement scene" that you'll know when you see.
Performance-wise, the whole deal is impressive. Whilst I wouldn't say anyone was amazing on any particular level, the Oscar buzz has already been stirring about Robert Downey Jr. for Best Supporting Actor as crime journalist Paul Avery, and I wouldn't contest this. Gyllenhaal was competent as Graysmith, yet not outstanding, nor diabolical, in any strict sense. Chloe Sevigny did well in her supporting role as Graysmith's love interest, and luckily Fincher didn't suffocate the bread and butter of the film with a cliche of a love story but rather glossed over it in the passage of time. One wouldn't be embarassed for even realising that the characters eventually married, due to the dilluted passage of time throughout the film (considering the film spans four decades in 158 minutes).
In conclusion, Zodiac is a procedural thriller that, whilst not delivering the thrills and spills of more populist Hollywood cinema, is utterly compelling, both if you're highly interested in the Zodiac case (such as myself) or are merely a fan of Fincher (and even if you're not). I'd be surprised if anything came along in the rest of 2007 that could touch this, and if so, it has its work cut out for it. Fincher - I salute you in creating an atmospheric, exciting and genuinely engrossing feature that will surely be underwatched and ignored by the masses for years to come. To say that this film is a diamond in the rough is not doing this film service.
10/10.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.
David Fincher's "Zodiac" has been a long time in the making, Fincher himself spending 18-months reading and examing case files of the Zodiac killer's purported crimes and aiming to create a work that was highly accurate to the actual events themselves. After the agonising 2-and-a-half month wait for this film to reach our shores following the US release, it's finally here. On the heels of overwhelmingly positive reviews, yet with detractors however claiming the film drags its feet and offers an unsatisfying conclusion, does Fincher deliver the goods again as he did with Se7en and Fight Club?
A resounding "yes" is in order, to say the least. I don't want to pre-emptively give the film too many accolades, but I don't think it'd be unfair to say that Zodiac is one of the most visceral, realistic and engrossing serial killer fares ever committed to screen. All of the literature I've ever on the Zodiac killer was brought kicking and screaming to life in a project that I feel will be considered a future classic by those who just give it a chance. If you're expecting a thrills-per-second, explosion-filled twist-fest, steer well clear. This film is above any kind of reproach to that effect, and instead relies on a tight script, utterly flawless direction, and a historical dilligence that I've not heard of previously.
From the word "go", this film just sweeps you off your feet, grabs you by both hands and won't let go for 158 minutes. The opening scene, with Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" is undoubtedly one of the most thrilling and exciting opening scenes I've witnessed in a long time. The film wastes no time in building things up, and goes straight for the jugular - about three or four minutes into the film, the Zodiac has splattered his first victims in a hurried and violent attack. The aforementioned song truly exaggerates the intensity to a fever pitch, and it was from this moment that I knew that this film would be something special.
What really struck me about "Zodiac" is Fincher's seeming accuracy to the period of the late 60s/early 70s that the film is largely set in. The cars, the clothes, and namely the soundtrack all exude that vibe brilliantly, and it was a true joy to watch. Furthermore, the opening Warner Brothers logo is the classic version used from the 70s, and this kind of dilligence is what makes Fincher one of the best contemporary directors today.
The basic setup following the first murder on July 4th, 1969, is that the killer then sends a letter to the San Fransisco Chronicle, announcing himself as "The Zodiac" and playing innumerable games with both the paper and the police. Cue Robert Graysmith - a cartoonist for the paper who takes a curious interest in the case. This interest very slowly seems to become an obsession, with Graysmith wanting to look the killer in the eyes and know it's him. Through all of the murders, and 2500 suspects interviewed, the film is ultimately, by its climax, a film about obsession, and how the case destroyed a number of lives of those surrounding it. As the film's tagline itself states - "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer", and by the end of the film, this rings completely true.
The real Robert Graysmith wrote the book on which the film was based, and the film takes the same stance as Graysmith does, proposing who the real Zodiac killer was, yet still giving the audience room to draw their own conclusions. Rather then overtly forcing the audience to believe any one thing, the evidence, whilst intrinsically gathering some of Graysmith's own views, are ultimately laid down in front of the viewer for them to decide for themselves. It is this means by which some have deemed the climax unsatisfying, but if you step back for a second and imagine that - a) this was a real case and b) Fincher is attempting to tell things like they are, then you should realise that this is above providing an unmasking and a quick clean-up job to a terrorising boogeyman.
As mentioned earlier, the direction here is truly arresting. Whilst I didn't particularly see the shooting on HD as being particularly effective (and as this is essentially a "period" piece, it seems somewhat of an odd choice when compared to shooting on film), there are some absolutely golden shots here. Any time Fincher focuses on the Golden Gate Bridge, one could easily take one of these frames and mount it on their wall as a piece of art. Fincher rarely wastes a frame, yet I just wish that he lingered more on the Bridge at times. There's also this brilliant shot early on where Fincher stalks a cab from above moments before the murder of Paul Stine that is unforgettable. Fincher truly uses his shots to convey a foreboding mood, particularly in the much-lauded "basement scene" that you'll know when you see.
Performance-wise, the whole deal is impressive. Whilst I wouldn't say anyone was amazing on any particular level, the Oscar buzz has already been stirring about Robert Downey Jr. for Best Supporting Actor as crime journalist Paul Avery, and I wouldn't contest this. Gyllenhaal was competent as Graysmith, yet not outstanding, nor diabolical, in any strict sense. Chloe Sevigny did well in her supporting role as Graysmith's love interest, and luckily Fincher didn't suffocate the bread and butter of the film with a cliche of a love story but rather glossed over it in the passage of time. One wouldn't be embarassed for even realising that the characters eventually married, due to the dilluted passage of time throughout the film (considering the film spans four decades in 158 minutes).
In conclusion, Zodiac is a procedural thriller that, whilst not delivering the thrills and spills of more populist Hollywood cinema, is utterly compelling, both if you're highly interested in the Zodiac case (such as myself) or are merely a fan of Fincher (and even if you're not). I'd be surprised if anything came along in the rest of 2007 that could touch this, and if so, it has its work cut out for it. Fincher - I salute you in creating an atmospheric, exciting and genuinely engrossing feature that will surely be underwatched and ignored by the masses for years to come. To say that this film is a diamond in the rough is not doing this film service.
10/10.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
WARNING: very minor spoilers below.
David Fincher's "Zodiac" has been a long time in the making, Fincher himself spending 18-months reading and examing case files of the Zodiac killer's purported crimes and aiming to create a work that was highly accurate to the actual events themselves. After the agonising 2-and-a-half month wait for this film to reach our shores following the US release, it's finally here. On the heels of overwhelmingly positive reviews, yet with detractors however claiming the film drags its feet and offers an unsatisfying conclusion, does Fincher deliver the goods again as he did with Se7en and Fight Club?
A resounding "yes" is in order, to say the least. I don't want to pre-emptively give the film too many accolades, but I don't think it'd be unfair to say that Zodiac is one of the most visceral, realistic and engrossing serial killer fares ever committed to screen. All of the literature I've ever on the Zodiac killer was brought kicking and screaming to life in a project that I feel will be considered a future classic by those who just give it a chance. If you're expecting a thrills-per-second, explosion-filled twist-fest, steer well clear. This film is above any kind of reproach to that effect, and instead relies on a tight script, utterly flawless direction, and a historical dilligence that I've not heard of previously.
From the word "go", this film just sweeps you off your feet, grabs you by both hands and won't let go for 158 minutes. The opening scene, with Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" is undoubtedly one of the most thrilling and exciting opening scenes I've witnessed in a long time. The film wastes no time in building things up, and goes straight for the jugular - about three or four minutes into the film, the Zodiac has splattered his first victims in a hurried and violent attack. The aforementioned song truly exaggerates the intensity to a fever pitch, and it was from this moment that I knew that this film would be something special.
What really struck me about "Zodiac" is Fincher's seeming accuracy to the period of the late 60s/early 70s that the film is largely set in. The cars, the clothes, and namely the soundtrack all exude that vibe brilliantly, and it was a true joy to watch. Furthermore, the opening Warner Brothers logo is the classic version used from the 70s, and this kind of dilligence is what makes Fincher one of the best contemporary directors today.
The basic setup following the first murder on July 4th, 1969, is that the killer then sends a letter to the San Fransisco Chronicle, announcing himself as "The Zodiac" and playing innumerable games with both the paper and the police. Cue Robert Graysmith - a cartoonist for the paper who takes a curious interest in the case. This interest very slowly seems to become an obsession, with Graysmith wanting to look the killer in the eyes and know it's him. Through all of the murders, and 2500 suspects interviewed, the film is ultimately, by its climax, a film about obsession, and how the case destroyed a number of lives of those surrounding it. As the film's tagline itself states - "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer", and by the end of the film, this rings completely true.
The real Robert Graysmith wrote the book on which the film was based, and the film takes the same stance as Graysmith does, proposing who the real Zodiac killer was, yet still giving the audience room to draw their own conclusions. Rather then overtly forcing the audience to believe any one thing, the evidence, whilst intrinsically gathering some of Graysmith's own views, are ultimately laid down in front of the viewer for them to decide for themselves. It is this means by which some have deemed the climax unsatisfying, but if you step back for a second and imagine that - a) this was a real case and b) Fincher is attempting to tell things like they are, then you should realise that this is above providing an unmasking and a quick clean-up job to a terrorising boogeyman.
As mentioned earlier, the direction here is truly arresting. Whilst I didn't particularly see the shooting on HD as being particularly effective (and as this is essentially a "period" piece, it seems somewhat of an odd choice when compared to shooting on film), there are some absolutely golden shots here. Any time Fincher focuses on the Golden Gate Bridge, one could easily take one of these frames and mount it on their wall as a piece of art. Fincher rarely wastes a frame, yet I just wish that he lingered more on the Bridge at times. There's also this brilliant shot early on where Fincher stalks a cab from above moments before the murder of Paul Stine that is unforgettable. Fincher truly uses his shots to convey a foreboding mood, particularly in the much-lauded "basement scene" that you'll know when you see.
Performance-wise, the whole deal is impressive. Whilst I wouldn't say anyone was amazing on any particular level, the Oscar buzz has already been stirring about Robert Downey Jr. for Best Supporting Actor as crime journalist Paul Avery, and I wouldn't contest this. Gyllenhaal was competent as Graysmith, yet not outstanding, nor diabolical, in any strict sense. Chloe Sevigny did well in her supporting role as Graysmith's love interest, and luckily Fincher didn't suffocate the bread and butter of the film with a cliche of a love story but rather glossed over it in the passage of time. One wouldn't be embarassed for even realising that the characters eventually married, due to the dilluted passage of time throughout the film (considering the film spans four decades in 158 minutes).
In conclusion, Zodiac is a procedural thriller that, whilst not delivering the thrills and spills of more populist Hollywood cinema, is utterly compelling, both if you're highly interested in the Zodiac case (such as myself) or are merely a fan of Fincher (and even if you're not). I'd be surprised if anything came along in the rest of 2007 that could touch this, and if so, it has its work cut out for it. Fincher - I salute you in creating an atmospheric, exciting and genuinely engrossing feature that will surely be underwatched and ignored by the masses for years to come. To say that this film is a diamond in the rough is not doing this film service.
10/10.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.
David Fincher's "Zodiac" has been a long time in the making, Fincher himself spending 18-months reading and examing case files of the Zodiac killer's purported crimes and aiming to create a work that was highly accurate to the actual events themselves. After the agonising 2-and-a-half month wait for this film to reach our shores following the US release, it's finally here. On the heels of overwhelmingly positive reviews, yet with detractors however claiming the film drags its feet and offers an unsatisfying conclusion, does Fincher deliver the goods again as he did with Se7en and Fight Club?
A resounding "yes" is in order, to say the least. I don't want to pre-emptively give the film too many accolades, but I don't think it'd be unfair to say that Zodiac is one of the most visceral, realistic and engrossing serial killer fares ever committed to screen. All of the literature I've ever on the Zodiac killer was brought kicking and screaming to life in a project that I feel will be considered a future classic by those who just give it a chance. If you're expecting a thrills-per-second, explosion-filled twist-fest, steer well clear. This film is above any kind of reproach to that effect, and instead relies on a tight script, utterly flawless direction, and a historical dilligence that I've not heard of previously.
From the word "go", this film just sweeps you off your feet, grabs you by both hands and won't let go for 158 minutes. The opening scene, with Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" is undoubtedly one of the most thrilling and exciting opening scenes I've witnessed in a long time. The film wastes no time in building things up, and goes straight for the jugular - about three or four minutes into the film, the Zodiac has splattered his first victims in a hurried and violent attack. The aforementioned song truly exaggerates the intensity to a fever pitch, and it was from this moment that I knew that this film would be something special.
What really struck me about "Zodiac" is Fincher's seeming accuracy to the period of the late 60s/early 70s that the film is largely set in. The cars, the clothes, and namely the soundtrack all exude that vibe brilliantly, and it was a true joy to watch. Furthermore, the opening Warner Brothers logo is the classic version used from the 70s, and this kind of dilligence is what makes Fincher one of the best contemporary directors today.
The basic setup following the first murder on July 4th, 1969, is that the killer then sends a letter to the San Fransisco Chronicle, announcing himself as "The Zodiac" and playing innumerable games with both the paper and the police. Cue Robert Graysmith - a cartoonist for the paper who takes a curious interest in the case. This interest very slowly seems to become an obsession, with Graysmith wanting to look the killer in the eyes and know it's him. Through all of the murders, and 2500 suspects interviewed, the film is ultimately, by its climax, a film about obsession, and how the case destroyed a number of lives of those surrounding it. As the film's tagline itself states - "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer", and by the end of the film, this rings completely true.
The real Robert Graysmith wrote the book on which the film was based, and the film takes the same stance as Graysmith does, proposing who the real Zodiac killer was, yet still giving the audience room to draw their own conclusions. Rather then overtly forcing the audience to believe any one thing, the evidence, whilst intrinsically gathering some of Graysmith's own views, are ultimately laid down in front of the viewer for them to decide for themselves. It is this means by which some have deemed the climax unsatisfying, but if you step back for a second and imagine that - a) this was a real case and b) Fincher is attempting to tell things like they are, then you should realise that this is above providing an unmasking and a quick clean-up job to a terrorising boogeyman.
As mentioned earlier, the direction here is truly arresting. Whilst I didn't particularly see the shooting on HD as being particularly effective (and as this is essentially a "period" piece, it seems somewhat of an odd choice when compared to shooting on film), there are some absolutely golden shots here. Any time Fincher focuses on the Golden Gate Bridge, one could easily take one of these frames and mount it on their wall as a piece of art. Fincher rarely wastes a frame, yet I just wish that he lingered more on the Bridge at times. There's also this brilliant shot early on where Fincher stalks a cab from above moments before the murder of Paul Stine that is unforgettable. Fincher truly uses his shots to convey a foreboding mood, particularly in the much-lauded "basement scene" that you'll know when you see.
Performance-wise, the whole deal is impressive. Whilst I wouldn't say anyone was amazing on any particular level, the Oscar buzz has already been stirring about Robert Downey Jr. for Best Supporting Actor as crime journalist Paul Avery, and I wouldn't contest this. Gyllenhaal was competent as Graysmith, yet not outstanding, nor diabolical, in any strict sense. Chloe Sevigny did well in her supporting role as Graysmith's love interest, and luckily Fincher didn't suffocate the bread and butter of the film with a cliche of a love story but rather glossed over it in the passage of time. One wouldn't be embarassed for even realising that the characters eventually married, due to the dilluted passage of time throughout the film (considering the film spans four decades in 158 minutes).
In conclusion, Zodiac is a procedural thriller that, whilst not delivering the thrills and spills of more populist Hollywood cinema, is utterly compelling, both if you're highly interested in the Zodiac case (such as myself) or are merely a fan of Fincher (and even if you're not). I'd be surprised if anything came along in the rest of 2007 that could touch this, and if so, it has its work cut out for it. Fincher - I salute you in creating an atmospheric, exciting and genuinely engrossing feature that will surely be underwatched and ignored by the masses for years to come. To say that this film is a diamond in the rough is not doing this film service.
10/10.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.