Bullets 'n' Babes

David Fincher is one of the more stylised directors today, but his past films have lacked much substance or replay value. Seven and Fight Club are good films but honestly they're way overrated, they lose all of their impact on repeat viewings.

I'm attracted to this film's story though, in real life they never caught the killer behind the Zodiac murders.

Zodiac is Fincher's best, most accomplished, and substantial work. I was completely engrossed in the film and the time simply flew by.

The best comparison I think is Stone's JFK. Two truly epic films.

I thought Se7en was very good, but Fight Club is a very silly movie.

I though the oposite I thought Seven was hyped to hell and was all about THAT ending, which was ruined for me before hand and so the film just felt very average.

Fight Club's a classic rewatched it the other day, stunning.

I couldnt care less about Zodiac so far from what I have seen, looks as bland and boring as any other film of its ilk. I will see it obviously in the end, but from all I have seen and heard really it looks about as entertaining and exciting as a bag of mints.

Fight Club is all sound and fury and adds up to absolutely nothing.

To you maybe, not to me and many others

Seven is all dark brooding nothingness and a dire ending but I am alone on that, what do I care.

romerojpg wrote:To you maybe, not to me and many others

OK. What's it about? And I don't mean a synopsis.

Who cares what its about, its a great film, I dont care about shitty subtexts and bollocks like that.

Its like saying Starship Troopers is a anti Nazi film, bollocks! its a big bug killing army film!

I think its sad as hell when people find subtexts and shit and think a film is that, most the time they "find" (make up, imagine) them, as they were never there when the director made it.

romerojpg wrote:I think its sad as hell when people find subtexts and shit and think a film is that, most the time they "find" (make up, imagine) them, as they were never there when the director made it.

Reminds me of people "finding" social commentaries in Night of the Living Dead, when they weren't there (Zombies outside working together, humans inside tearing each other apart. A black dude being the hero, he was just hired becuz he was the best dude who auditioned, LOL.)

The later Romero Dead films definitely had social commentaries though.

Yup even Romero said no, there was no subtext etc.. in Night of the Living Dead, later he just went along with it as it made the big headed critics think they were very clever Sadly he went so over the top in Land of the Dead it ruined the film

Dont try to be clever, it doesnt work.

romerojpg wrote:Who cares what its about, its a great film

I went to see Inland Empire last night and got all the times wrong to find out it was only on the night before not last night, bugger!

So in the end I saw this. Overall it was very good, incredibly detailed and long. Fincher goes to great lengths to map out each crime, the characters and basically every shot. This on the one hand works excellently but on the other hand it means by half way through you're so completely lost with all the details being thrown at you you're somewhat confused.

This is probably the point as it's clear the cops, journalists and comic artist barely have a clue how the Zodiac is getting away with things. It's unlikely he'd get away with it today but 40 odd years forensics weren't half as good.

Fincher decided to give us pretty much the entire case in a 2.5 hour period so the film spans from 1967 right up to 1991. That would work great in a book but IMO in a film it's a mistake. The film simply has too much detail, which is weird as I'm normally saying a film doesn't have enough. It does also mean parts of Zodiac go into so much detail but to catch up we constantly jump forward, sometimes hours, sometimes years.

Right at the end we're even given 3 very detailed screens of text to read, which of course you read quickly and can't take it in. I reckon I got the gist of what was going on but how they came to working out what he did, well I was lost. I got the central concept but the details huh???

Why was he shit scarred in that old guys house too? Who on earth was he?

It's definitely a film you need to see at least twice to take it all in. Don't go in half asleep as you'll have no chance . Like I said overall it's very good but has simply far too much detail for a 2.5 hour running time. Personally I rated Seven and Fight Club higher, I even rate Panic Room higher.

Overall I'd give it a solid 7 out of 10.

I'm surprised no one else has seen this.

Its not a film many people want to see thats why, and thats why it floopped hard. Its also got one of the worst trailers I have seen in recent years, looks awful from them. I will end up seeing it, but not gonna go out of my way to see it as frankly it looks bloody depressing and the cast looks bland as a big sweater.

The trailer is very misleading, it makes it look fast and flashy like Seven/Fight Club but it's not, it's slow and you need to think about it.

I'd disagree it's an unpopular choice though, Seven and Fight Club are very popular and besides we have more discerning tastes and these boards, don't we? . It's probably the wrong time of year to release it though, being summer blockbuster time though.

All I cared before going in was it was a David Fincher film, so really enough said. For me anyway. He's never made a dud, even Alien 3 is decent, that's underrated IMO.

Panic Room was kind of a dud.

I thought Panic Room was great, lots of edge of your seat stuff, plus Jodie's boobies were flipping awesome . Zodiac has loads more depth than Panic Room.

Surely someone else by now has seen this? It's Fincher!

I've seen it. Posted a review and everything.

Not in that silly reviews thread? Do I have to dig in to find it?

Yeah I posted in there. I thought it was pretty cool.

I tend to post in the reviews thread and the thread for the particular film (if there is one). That way it doesn't get buried.

Grrr Paramount strike again, just go bankrupt and let some decent company buy you out:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/zodiac.html

Why are you surprised by a barebones release? It was a massive flop commercially.
http://the-numbers.com/movies/2007/ZODIC.php.

It has nothing to do with Paramount's track record with DVDs. On a related note, were you living under a rock for the past year+? They've released loads of SEs in recent times (of non-Star Trek films).

Who said I was surprised? Annoyed though.

I hear it did better in Europe, no surprise there. The yanks are worse than Europeans in wanting a neat and tide up package. I was too long but still good.

They've released loads of SEs in recent times (of non-Star Trek films).

Obviously but compared to the rest they're still shit.