MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

25 March 2007

So has anyone here seen Zodiac? I saw it yesterday afternoon, on a digital projector.[More:]After thinking about it, it might be my favorite David Fincher movie. It's long (160 minutes), but it didn't feel long at all. Enjoyment of it is probably directly related to your willingness to accept that:

(a) though it's directed by David Fincher, the number of gratuitously stylish images in it probably numbers less than ten;

(b) though it initially appears to be a conventional police procedural, it doesn't have the traditionally neat solution that films like this usually do. The film is more interested in the people attempting to solve the case than it is in the killer himself.

As for the digital projection--I'm ambivalent. I didn't hate it, and it's probably good for movies that are made with it in mind. The image was very sharp, but the blacks weren't very black, and rapid panning shots occasionally suffered due to the refresh rate. There were also the relatively washed-out colors that are typical of much digital filmmaking (but in the particular case of Zodiac it sort of worked, recalling the aesthetics of many films of the '70s). The friend of mine I was with said afterward, "I really wouldn't want to watch a Hitchcock movie on that screen," and I agreed.
I saw it the weekend it was released, and thought it was brilliant -- in large part precisely because it's not a conventional police procedurual, which is apparently part of the "problem" with the film, gross-wise. (My bf's friend saw it recently, and he was furious that they didn't catch the killer. I said, "but they never caught him in real life." To which he responded, "doesn't matter. Movies are the opposite of life - they're supposed to be wrapped up." To which I said, "you're not a big fan of Rashomon, are you?")

I saw it on a regular screen, though, and I have to say that I thought it looked fantastic -- the colors were great and the panning shots worked well.
posted by scody 25 March | 12:29
[...]To which he responded, "doesn't matter. Movies are the opposite of life - they're supposed to be wrapped up."

The scene in which Toschi goes to the movies to watch Dirty Harry was a clever nod to that sentiment, I thought.

It's too bad that the movie seems doomed to box-office failure--perhaps it'll get one of those deluxe DVD editions that Fincher movies often seem to receive. (Apparently there's going to be some sort of director's cut of it, at the least.)
posted by Prospero 25 March | 14:14
I agree, the Dirty Harry scene was a great comment on that impulse.

Yeah, I think it's too bad to see it fail at the box office, too -- I think it's a very smart, challenging, and genuinely chilling film (even with the problems with the Arthur Leigh Allen "solution," which -- as I understand it -- isn't actually so clear-cut in reality, no matter what Graysmith insists). Terrific performances, too -- Mark Ruffalo is fantastic. Good to hear about the possible director's cut. I'd love to see that.
posted by scody 25 March | 15:04
Hmm, for some reason it just doesn't appeal to me at all.
posted by delmoi 25 March | 18:02
Getting Lippy || Procrastination broken?

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN