Can a movie be absolute fascinating and engaging and still be, like, not a “good” movie? What do I mean by this? I mean Zodiac had me. I loved the pacing, the acting, the cinematograpy, the costumes & props, the music – and yet, I knew it wasn’t going anywhere. I know the “dead end” aspect of the true case is an essential point of this film – but it wasn’t just that. I had little connection to the characters other than surface clues that “they became obssesed.” But Harry Caul in The Conversation became obssessed and you felt it. In Zodiac they became obsessed because the movie told us so.
Or, maybe I just can’t break free of the traditional Hollywood template. Maybe I need closure. Either way, I do recommend Zodiac for people who dig reporter stories or cop procedurals. It is very well crafted. And don’t think I didn’t notice the 70s Paramount logo. (Mark Ruffalo can be my Jake Gittes any time.)
Sure it can! I felt the same way, but could not write it as eloquently on my blog. Instead I typed this a couple of weeks ago: http://foodfilmcorner.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/zodiac-david-fincher-2007-b/
I felt absolutely the same way – why the hell was Gyllenhaal so obsessed? I was never convinced!
I love your website, love the reviews – always provides me with new thoughts on what to read or watch next. I work for the Canadian gov’t, in a dept that has recently implemented a filter system for websites we canna get at on their time. Yours (which I readily admit is not really work related) comes up identified as being banned as it is identified as “pornography”. It’s the only site that has elicited that specific reason why it is blocked, and I work in an artsy area where sites I do look at legitimately may contain oddball imagery and nudity. Just thought you might get a laugh! Or what! In any case, I’m creating an interesting user profile for our IT guys.