Zodiac
There really isn’t a lot to add to my first review, but I told myself I’d watch it again and update, so here I am. I underrated the technical aspects of the movie, that’s for sure. I’ve still a lot of Oscar hopefuls to sift through before February, but at this admittedly early stage I’d be pretty astonished if this doesn’t win, let alone be nominated for, the costume, production design, cinematography and possibly score categories.
But no matter how masterful it is in those departments, there’s still something massive that’s missing that would make it truly worth the 2 and a half hours. And I say that having really wanted to engage this time around. There just, I don’t know, aren’t enough “beats” here or something, and though I forced my attention not to drift, it kinda hurt to force. We’ve all heard of style over substance; I feel this one really has a case of detail over it.
July 19th, 2007:
I feel like my brain is sort of leaking or something saying this, but I actually found this slightly boring. Being a David Fincher movie, of course the production design etc is absolutely meticulous and the recreation of the era(s) etc is nothing short of perfect – I could’ve told you that way back in the year when I first saw an early clip of Mark Ruffalo and Jake Gyllenhaal in the coffee shop plain talking – looks like it’s been taken straight out of a Sidney Lumet or Alan J. Pakula movie, quite stunning, and the performances are all just as flawless.
It’s probably the smartest movie of ‘07, for what that’s worth, and I really loved David Shire’s score (ooh, he did All the President’s Men! I knew there had to be a tighter connection here than mere homage …). I would never have guessed it was shot digitally, either, the look is beautiful. But, I don’t know, ultimately it did very little that was news to me. I’d honestly rather watch “Panic Room” or, to keep within the genre, Fincher’s own Se7en – or even those old 70s thrillers this so obviously takes its style cues from – than this again. Bottom line is it’s 2 and a half hours long … I can’t imagine seeing this one on the big screen, I don’t think I’d ever feel my butt again. There’s no need whatsoever for that length here, no matter how much effort clearly went into the imagery.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Why don’t you think Zodiac will be nomanatied for best picture? I think it’s the best movie of the year.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Well, my review hopefully explains this, but I realise I really need to see it again and will before the year is out. To be honest, I thought it was slightly wishful thinking putting Fincher in for director and I did so only because I don’t feel “Once” (though for the record I haven’t seen that yet, but I think I know what to expect) is a movie that will get that nomination. Fincher deserves to be recognised Scorsese-style for past works – I’m still not decided on his most recent.