Movie Review - "Zodiac"
"You're doing it again! That thing I don't like that starts with an 'L'"
David Fincher's "Zodiac" is the most disciplined and least-flashy movie in his career. A 2 hour, 45 minute overview of California's "Zodiac" serial-killer case from almost the start to the finish--a nearly thirty year tale that is less about the crimes, specifically, but more about obsession: the obsessions that sparked the crimes and the obsessions, in turn, sparked by them. Over time as personalities change, careers and fortunes rise and fall, as the city morphs and hem-lines and side-burns flare and recede, the obsession burns and inflicts its own damage. It's a movie about that damage and the shockwaves that killers inflict beyond the immediate victims.
This is not to say that "Zodiac" is not violent--it is, at least for the first half-hour or so, but it is the cold-blooded casualness of the violence that stuns (at one point "Zodiac" is seen pummelling a woman and you realize to your horror that she is being stabbed--these are the least "theatrical" killings I've seen on-screen), and those expecting a gore-fest will be let down by the lack of screen-time devoted to the actual murders, but Fincher maintains a looming (that "L" word mentioned above) unease that infects later scenes with dread.
Stay to the end of the credits and you'll be presented will three big-screen pages of technical consultants (many of whom are the real-life characters portrayed in the film) and a long list of thanks to communities who figured in the convoluted path of the tale. Meticulously researched and painstakingly recreated (I've seen glowing comment threads from San Franciscans amazed at the scruplulousness of the production), the same care is also taken with the many performances from a non-stellar, but reliable cast of character-actors all doing subtle, nuanced work. From Robert Downey Jr.'s fussy turn as a scruffy San Francisco Chronicle reporter, to Anthony Edwards and Mark Rufalo as the two lead SFPD detectives investigating (you can imagine Rufalo's Detective Toschi serving as a model for both Steve McQueen's "Bullitt" and Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" even though his performance is far-afield of those star-turns), and Jake Gyllenhaal as the character involved longest with the case...except for the killer.
"You've got the look." An acquaintance of a Zodiac suspect guesses immediately that's what Gyllenhaal's Robert Graysmith wants to talk about and it's the eyes that are the dead give-away. Gyllenhaal has used that moony-goony look of his to great effectiveness in "October Sky" and "Brokeback Mountain," but put an edge to it and he's got the most effective "thousand mile stare" in Hollywood as in "Jarhead" (He's matched by Rufalo's Toschi, his eyes glinting hard-cold while maintaining a disarming, constant half-smile). It pays off towards the film's end when two stalkers who've never met recognize each other immediately. For all the period detail that informs the movie, the drama is carried along and climaxed by the look in people's eyes.
Fincher harkens back to the paranoid thrillers of the 70's, even going so far as to use the Paramount and Warners Studio logos from the era, and reviving the career of composer David Shire whose sombre, oppressive scores provided the low rumblings of such films as "The Conversation" and "All the President's Men."
But despite the intricacies of plot, the labyrinth of clues and puzzles, the shadowy corridors, darkened streets and blind alleys, the film is never allowed to lose focus or drag. One is never aware of the length of the film, only the passage of time in the film. And that's an amazing accomplishment, but not the last one.
Because for all the time-lapse CGI tricks Fincher employs (and some of the essential clues that are focussed on), there is an acknowledgement made of the most lethal serial killer: in the end, time gets all of us. Our life-histories catch up, and right or wrong, no one goes away unpunished.
What Jon said ("Zodiac" is a full-price ticket)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas prices are high at $2.79 a gallon for regular, while the price for sweet crude dropped to $60.05 a barrel. It may be a relative drop in the barrel, but still...."Market Forces."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Song in me Head: "Bad Boy" (Beatles version--"Now, Jun-yah, Be-HAVE yo'self")
5 comments:
You don't say if it is a full-price or matinee ticket? Though I'll hazard a guess and say it's a full-price?
Lest there be a misunderstanding...Jon posted this comment and it got doubled for some reason--Perhaps it was a transporter malfunction--and both were posted. I just eliminated one of them to prevent Jon from becoming a minor character in "Goodfellas." (Man! Does Dennis Miller need writers?)
You liked it better than I did. Perhaps that speaks to your greater attention span. I felt like Ruffalo and Downey were the only redeeming features... other than that, it lacked drama (perhaps because it required itself to stick to the facts) and neither the killer's nor boyscout Jake Gyllanhall's motivation seemed compelling enough to merit a movie. So it felt like two half-movies patched together. I thought it lacked a central point. By the end of the 2:45 I felt bored.
I was surprised at the number of older people in the crowd. Must have been folks who remembered the case. Given the director and the previews, I expected something darker and more thrilling. When I saw the 70 and 80 year olds filing into the audience, I thought, "oh boy, you guys are gonna be freaked out by this one." Boy was I wrong.
Oh, you're right on all counts (I think Downey, jr. is worth the admission price of any movie but, like Nicholson in "The Departed," I felt like his performance was a bit too much for the movie--Ruffalo was spot on) which is exactly why I like it. I've always had problems with Fincher and his penchant for drowning a movie with attitude and effect, even while my admiration for his ability to tell a story grew with every film.
I didn't like "Alien3" though I think it was a damned good direction for the franchise to go. I found "Se7en" loathsome but well-constructed. I thought "Fight Club" was fighteningly entertaining, but a complete cheat. "Panic Room" I thought was very interesting for his work with actors and his ability to use a contained space for drama (but he still couldn't resist flying the camera through the handle of a coffee pot!). I truly admired the lack of flash that Fincher brought to "Zodiac" and the discipline with which he told the story. And it's plenty dark. Thrilling? No. Almost banal (that stabbing in the park still freaks me out due to its ruthlessness and...casualness). As far as motivations, frankly, "Rosebud" could have been "Zodiac's" sled, and I wouldn't have given a damn. I really wasn't interested in his motivation....or "justification" as there really wasn't any. Plus isn't that just melodarama? And baseless in fact? And thus, goes against the grain of the film. Graysmith's motivation? He liked puzzles, and "Zodiac" provided them like the daily crossword. And his obsession to the detriment of all else in his life is the central point of the story.
I LIKE the fact that it isn't a conventional "heavy-breathing" slasher movie melodrama. That's been done and done and done to death. It's no longer thrilling...or even interesting. It's now a cliche and more likely to prompt giggles than chills. Now, they have to pit "Freddie" against "Jason."
Uh-huh. Wake me when that's over.
Yeah, at the matinee I went to the previews were endless rehashes of slasher movies, and the teen to 20 year-old crowd was hopped-up for "Zodiac" to play after 20 minutes of MTV editing and shock-cuts. They grudgingly stayed through the movie. But they grumbled it wasn't "scary" enough as they walked out.
I found that funny.
Post a Comment