comment #1

jeffmcm says ...

Top twenty, sure. Top five, I would contest that.

comment #2

swordandpen says ...

I'd like them to release the director's cut in theaters before it comes out on DVD. Fincher is presenting it at the Walter Reade theater in New York a week from Monday.

I would put it in my top 5 for now along with No Country For Old Men, Before The Devil Knows You're Dead, Into The Wild and Ratatouille.

comment #3

MickTravis says ...

What other five you got?

comment #4

StoneFan1 says ...

Jeff - Give me a break! "Zodiac" was a mildly interesting effort, but nowhere even close to a "masterpiece" level achievement. Oh, "Heat" is also highly overrated by you and many others.
If you cut out all the useless female characters and boil it down to two hours (or so), then maybe I'd reconsider it. It doesn't stand up to Mann's "Last of the Mohicans," "Insider," "Thief," or "Manhunter."

comment #5

Gabriel says ...

I'd have "Zodiac" at number 5 right now behind "Assassination of Jesse James", "No Country for Old Men", "Control", and "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days". I don't see "There Will Be Blood" until next Thursday and I still need to catch up with "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead", "Into the Wild", and "American Gangster", among others. Conceivably, I could see "Zodiac" finishing as low as the 10th best film of the year. And I would be ecstatic because that would make this an exemplary film year.

Of course, I also have not caught up with it since opening night in March, so maybe I should watch it again for a reminder.

comment #6

StewartforPresident says ...

I think Fincher has the bad timing to run into a pissed off Coen Brothers, for all of the bashing they took from The Lady Killers.

comment #7

actionman says ...

As Wells said, Zodiac is a landmark American film. Utterly brilliant on every single level of filmmaking. Certainly in my top five:

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD
INTO THE WILD
ZODIAC
AMERICAN GANGSTER
THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE
EASTERN PROMISES
BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD
MICHAEL CLAYTON
THE KINGDOM
300

Seeing No Country for Old Men tomorrow; will have to wait till December for There Will Be Blood.

It's been a very, very strong year.

comment #8

christian says ...

Jeff, it's this kind of hyperbole that makes me remind you that you raved about KING KONG and MIAMI VICE. You dig the visual fumes fine but let time dictate its place in the pantheon.

comment #9

Noah says ...

Jeff, I applaud you for continuing to beat the drum for this masterpiece. I've seen over 140 movies so far this year and nothing is on the same level as Zodiac, which gets better with each viewing. Fincher's perfectionism pays off with this one, where this not a single false note. It takes complicated case files and histories and puts them brilliantly into an easy to follow and entertaining package that is rife with so much subtext and psychological intrigue. I could watch this film fifty times and pick up on different nuances and subtleties with each viewing.

comment #10

Zimmergirl says ...

It's a technically proficient film and a joy to watch -- BUT -- Jake Gyllenhaal was miscast. With a more interesting actor the whole film would have been a different experience. I liked it though. Top five? Na. Top twenty, why not.

comment #11

Geoff says ...

Couldn't have said it any better than Noah.

Wells you are the man. Love the HEAT comparison as well.

comment #12

Hopscotch says ...

I just finished watching Zodiac this morning (it took three different times but I got through it). Nominations for Production Design and VFX would be more than deserved, but I wasn't crazy about the rest of the movie.

I didn't find it muddling or anything like that, it's very well-made. I just don't think it added up to anything. Gyllenhall was totally miscast, Robert Downey Jr. played a version of his usual persona. the stuff with Mark Ruffalo was solid. I was just waiting for it pick up speed someplace. But it never did. And some might respect it's loyalty to the facts, but I was bored.

comment #13

MilkMan says ...

Top 5 of the DECADE.
People don't yet understand the importance of this film. It's not some kind of homage to 70s paranoid cinema, it is the ur-text of that genre, and it flips a mammoth bird to those hallowed years of American cinema, from the fact that it was shot on digital, to it's commentary on a society that was about to officially exit the lasts gasps of modernism and enter into a digital world where the illusion of technological connection would make it no easier to figure out whom did what to whom. Plus the way its treats the concept of time is revolutionary in mainstream American cinema, as a day is the same as a week is the same as five years. Dig the hyperdyschronia and jump on the bandwagon my friend, the 70s are gone and they're not coming back. David Fincher just killed 'em.

comment #14

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Once again, I completely agree with Jeff. All I've heard the past two weeks is how No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece. Um... not compared to Zodiac it isn't. Zodiac is fucking amazing on nearly every level. Sure Zimmergirl is kinda right about Gylly being miscast, but who else would you rather have? Gylly's sad, puppy dog eyes effectively communicate the toll the case takes on Graysmith. I like how chipper and spunky he is at the beginning and how morose and beaten-down he is by the end of the film. It's easily the closest thing to a complete masterpiece that I've seen all year. EASILY.

comment #15

malibugigolo says ...

Zodiac is a detestable form of pornography.

What did you gain from the movie?

People are dity?

Childish, and oh so babbit-luscious I want to find the
"harsh truth"..

lame-o

friend-o

Arizona Joe help me out here...

comment #16

MilkMan says ...

Malibu, you're supposed to post when the acid is peaking, not on the way up.

And I already knew people were "dity." A beaver told me so the last time I was in Jackson Hole and we shared a glass of huckleberry wine.

comment #17

MickTravis says ...

People are pretty dity, though.

comment #18

Balthazar says ...

I feel like a monkey in the middle here. I thoroughly enjoyed Zodiac and I can't really say anything bad about (nor do I want to).

But I'd be lying if I said it totally knocked my socks off, like some other great films of the past 15-20 years. It just didn't. It didn't resound in my psyche, either.

It's a great piece of filmmaking. If it gets nominated for a bunch of Academy Awards, I will probably nod my head and say, "Yeah, that was a really well-done film and it deserves those nods." If it doesn't get nominated for anything, I'm sure I won't find very much to protest about.

I just can't support this film at the Jeffrey does, and that makes me feel bad, because I do LIKE it.

comment #19

romeoisbleeding says ...

I totally agree with Jeff. This movie will be talked about for years and studied in film classes for years. I have tried in my own small way to get people to watch it on dvd now and those that do love it. I don't understand those so called gurus of gold etc ignoring this. They are voting for movies that they have not even seen. What a load of BS.

comment #20

MickTravis says ...

I think it would be nice if people who liked the movie started wearing some Zodiac buttons.

comment #21

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

Ok I'll start of by admitting that I am in fact a fanboy. Yes I think Fincher is a good director so that makes me a fanboy yes.

But those who say Gyllenhall was miscast. I need you to tell me, what he was asked to play given the story that Fincher was telling that Gyllenhall didn't or could not deliver on??

comment #22

Balthazar says ...

Also, while I enjoyed Zodiac immensely, I will never, ever, ever say that it's better than Seven. That film remains Fincher's masterpiece, IMO, and it's no insult to Zodiac to come in second to that film.

comment #23

Balthazar says ...

Jeffrey, here's a question. Rank, in 1-2-3 order, your opinion of Zodiac, There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men.

comment #24

austin111 says ...

It's one of the top ten films of the last decade, a true classic of the genre. I wouldn't dispute Wells placement at all.

comment #25

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Balthazar... you're right. Seven is perfect. Wouldn't change a thing about it. Not a single shot, a note of music, a line of dialogue, or an extra. PERFECTION. That, Silence of the Lambs, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

comment #26

Bilge says ...

For the record, I have included ZODIAC fairly prominently in almost all of my recent Gurus of Gold 2.0 ballots -- not only because I think it's a great film, but because I think it's got a real shot, provided it picks up at least one major critics' award, which I think it will. I've noticed a couple of other GoG2s have, too.

And this despite the fact that the Paramount PR team is, to this day, still the only studio that refuses to even invite me to any press screenings of any of their films, for whatever imaginary reason. I'm through with them, but I'll give credit where credit is due.

comment #27

jeffmcm says ...

If The Silence of the Lambs was 'perfect' it wouldn't have the mild undercurrent of homophobia and better lead performances.

comment #28

Zimmergirl says ...

Silence of the Lambs was perfect, I agree.

You Fincher fanboys irritate SO BAD.

Anyone who thinks Zodiac is THAT good has another think coming. It isn't deep; it's interesting visually and that's about it. It's so typical of young boys to mistake that kind of thing for depth. Just wait twenty, thirty years and watch it again. You'll see what I mean.

comment #29

alynch says ...

If The Silence of the Lambs was 'perfect' it wouldn't have the mild undercurrent of homophobia and better lead performances.

And the "Look At How Smart I Am Award" goes to...

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

That's not a counterargument.

comment #31

Aris P says ...

The undercurrent of homophobia was part of the plot. And Foster and Hopkins were excellent.

And Zodiac's a good movie, fine, but some of you are a little over the top.

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

"The undercurrent of homophobia was part of the plot."

Interesting. So if a movie is just a little bit evil, but technically well-made, it's 'perfect'. Nice criteria you have there, hope you enjoy your Triumph of the Will DVDs.

comment #33

Jesse Perry says ...

If there are five better films than ZODIAC this year, consider me The Happiest Filmgoer of 2007.

comment #34

frankbooth says ...

Milkman + the Seventies = D.Z. + Tarantino.

comment #35

carla kolchak says ...

'It's not a stretch, not a reach, and pretty much incontestable that David Fincher's Zodiac is one of the five best films of 2007.'

...so much for that theory. Evidently, that claim certainly is contestable. Somebody mentioned the word "hyperbole" and took it right outta my mouth. Personally, I enjoyed the film's first half. But then it got bogged down in Gyllenhaal's character's inexplicable obsession with the case and I think it just lost its way. Meh.

comment #36

christian says ...

Yes, ZODIAC was just like the 70's -- except the grit was created by computer...and looked it. And here I thought THERE WILL BE BLOOD was going to change the very face of cinema As We Know It.

comment #37

Josh Massey says ...

I would put Zodiac just after Michael Clayton and ... The Host. Why aren't more people talking about that near-classic?

comment #38

AJW says ...

"If The Silence of the Lambs was 'perfect' it wouldn't have the mild undercurrent of homophobia and better lead performances."

Sir Tony has been living off his performance for 15 years and watching him in that movie never gets old. Jodie Foster still skates by simply because of her performance. I don't know how you argue against their performances.

I also never believed the homophobia angle. Levine plays Buffalo Bill ambiguously; he hates women because he wants to be a woman. He's jealous. But that's about as far as we go. The complaints did bother Demme enough that he made Philadelphia, but I never saw the need. Equating whatever homophobia you read into the movie with the Nazism of Triumph is fairly preposterous. Maybe if Riefenstahl made Schindler's List. ;)

comment #39

malibugigolo says ...

Aris P: Of course. The whole movie screamed of:
I've never been able to get a woman off...

It is the most asexual movie ever.

But look at David F's movie he puts a woman's head in box, trapped in house...THE GAME was just mindfuck before a smooth anal between boys....he's about 18 mentally...

Women...get a little wine, put on rodrigo gabriela...love baby...don't be afraid fanboys women don't bit if you know where and when to eat.

comment #40

Balthazar says ...

Hopkins is great, of course, in "Silence," but I'll still watch and save Hopkins and Thompson in "Remains of the Day" most days over "Silence" A terrific performance there by Sir Anthony

comment #41

Balthazar says ...

make that watch and "savor"

comment #42

romeoisbleeding says ...

I have to make one more comment here and then I will shut up. I have been nuts about Zodiac since the first time I saw it. Seen it many times and own the dvd. ok. but one more thing. To the person on this thread who made some kind of comment about Robert Downey jr playing his usual persona... don't you know that he was playing a real reporter named Paul Avery who happened to be a drunk and drug addict? I read an article from the San Francisco Chronicle and reporters who knew and worked with Avery said Downey did a really great job portraying him. So what is your point here? was he supposed to play him differently even though he had these addiction problems and they lead to his downfall? I think Downey did a brilliant job and so do a lot of critics. He was not just playing himself. By the way he is clean and sober now and has been making more movies than most actors for the last few years. Check out Good Night and Good Luck. He has a small part in that movie and did a good job. But really what is the use. You already made up your mind about him and this movie obviously.

comment #43

MilkMan says ...

Frank Booth + Other people who know what they're talking about = The Marines + Defenseless Iraqi Women and Children

comment #44

DarthCorleone says ...

As I said here the other day, I love Zodiac. It's probably my favorite film of 2007 thus far. (I fully expect There Will Be Blood to take that slot.) I came home from the movie that day and immediately scoured the internet for all the info about the case that I could find. I was obsessive about it. One friend of mine loved the film even more than I did and read both of Graysmith's books. And another friend spent way too much futile energy on those unsolved ciphers.

But as I also said here the other day in the American Gangster accuracy thread, the lack of proven truth in Zodiac bothers me a little bit.

I've never been one to care about that sort of thing in movies. Battle of Stirling Bridge as opposed to just the Battle of Stirling? I shrug. The P.O.W. camps weren't quite that friendly at the River Kwai? So what? It's a movie. (What is up with accuracy in movies and bridges?) And so on, and so forth.

I understand a bunch of the changes in Zodiac. Graysmith's and Avery's friendship, for example, works and makes sense for the practical purposes of narrative streamlining. But in my opinion factual accuracy deserves a little more attention and respect when dealing with an unsolved case. I'm fine with Graysmith's character in the movie thinking that he has his man with Arthur Leigh Allen whether that is correct or not; that's good closure for his character. But they slant that view a little too much to convince the viewer in my opinion.

It's not enough to keep it from being a great film in my opinion. But it certainly is enough to keep it from being a perfect film. And it runs contrary to the repeated opinion in the forums here that Zodiac is so absolutely beholden to the established facts.

www.zodiackillerfacts.com/movie.htm

comment #45

sandekat says ...

Zondiac was OK. Relatively engrossing, but no lasting resonance. Great? Not by a long shot. Considered a landmark in 10 years? No. Not even a little.

But Robert Downey is great.

comment #46

jeffmcm says ...

Of course I'm exagerrating re: Nazis and Silence of the Lambs, but my point is that it's a mistake to say "homophobia is part of the story" as if that somehow makes it okay. For one thing, homophobia is not part of the story of that movie. The movie is very lightly homophobic because it has a serial killer who's a weirdo and part of his weirdoness is that he has fantasies that involve tucking his parts away and showing them to us. It's not a rabidly homophobic movie but I am willing to be that the reception it met with was one of the factors that chased both Demme and Jodie Foster away from the sequel and convinced Demme to only make guilty liberal movies for the rest of the decade.

Let me reiterate my main point, though: Silence of the Lambs, good movie, yes. Perfect movie, no. I don't think a perfect movie has ever been made.

comment #47

KeithNYC says ...

Darth,
Thanks for pointing that out. I also posted about this same topic a few weeks ago. I also did a little research after seeing (and being enthralled by) the film. Yeah, Fincher did leave some stuff out to further his final conclusion that Allen was the killer. One major example is the guy who claimed that Allen told him details about the Zodiac murders had a huge motivation to lie. He apparently thought Allen molested his children. I even remember a scene where Anthony Edwards character says something like "does this guy have any reason to want to see Allen in jail?". Apparently, Fincher never answered that question and I thought it was dishonest. Besides, a detail like that would have added to the whole mystery of whether Allen was actually the killer (which I still think he was). I still think "Zodiac" is a near great film but dont call it a masterpiece b/c it is "true to the facts".

comment #48

frankbooth says ...

Milkman,

Just thought you should know that T. Holly has figured out your typekey password and is posting under your name.

comment #49

DarthCorleone says ...

KeithNYC>> Check out that link I provided if you're interested. It's a lot of reading, but there are many other major reasons not to pin it on Allen aside from that guy's motivation to lie because of the child molestation. The handwriting and forensics evidence is very compelling, and that whole bit about Melvin Belli's receiving calls from the Zodiac and linking that to Allen's birthday (essentially the climax of the film in terms of evidence) is sketchy at best. I'm fairly convinced Allen was not Zodiac, although there of course is no doubt that Allen was a disturbed individual.

I'm left wondering if the film would not have been more effective (and certainly creepier) with the greater ambiguity that is much closer to the truth. I myself have not read Graysmith's books, but based on my internet research, it seems as if many of the other Zodiac buffs don't give his Allen theories much credit.

comment #50

T. Holly says ...

no frank, but why don't you be my line boy tomorrow night at The Fine Arts and hold a spot for the Elah screening?

comment #51

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Josh Massey, did you really think Michael Clayton was among the best films you've seen all year. It was good, no doubt. But not top 10 for me. Clooney's performance is great but I feel like a lot of that had to do with him totally selling me the character in that closing shot. I thought it was extremely intelligent and well-written and efficiently directed, first-rate all the way, but the story just wasn't all that interesting. it was a little pedestrian if you ask me. And all the supporting performances are excellent, Swinton, Pollack and Wilkinson especially, but none of them stand out for me. It's a very expertly assembled meal that's served a tad cold and tastes closer to acceptable than delicious. I dunno, I'm a bit torn on my overall reaction to it. On one hand, it impressed me, but on the other, I was left underwhelmed. Still, it doesn't really deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Zodiac, or other films like Ratatouille, Once, and Control which were actually incredible. There's no problem with Good But Not Great, but I don't feel Michael Clayton was the stuff Oscars are made of. But hey, that's just me and I'm a schmuck.

comment #52

jeffmcm says ...

People still think that there's a reason to see Elah?
I guess if you like Tommy Lee Jones, otherwise don't bother.

comment #53

Malone says ...

ZODIAC is absolutely a masterpiece and is Fincher's second best film behind the perfect SE7EN. Might be Downey's best performance ever.

That being said...

The line from ZODIAC that really resonates with me is when Ruffalo wonders why they're chasing a guy who has killed less people than the freeway out his window.

comment #54

lawnorder says ...

ZODIAC was solid but not top five (or even top ten), that's for sure. I wish Fincher would get off this bullshit digital kick. I would have given it extra points if he had shot it on film. The Viper and Genesis make me want to puke. Yes, SEVEN is his masterpiece. Zodiac is a minor work compared to SEVEN. I walked out of the theater having experienced one of the perfect movies of our time - and I still feel that way. I did not have feeling after viewing Zodiac. Will give it another shot after I watch the director's cut, which is sitting on top of my DVD player.

But why is nobody talking about GONE BABY GONE. Now, that is a fucking great movie, easily one of my favorites of the year.

And, yes, HEAT is another modern masterpiece. Sadly overlooked upon its release. I never get tired of revisiting it. And that's the true test of a classic.

comment #55

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Lawnorder, Gone Baby Gone was good, but it was mighty predictable, and it would've been a major disappointment if it weren't redeemed by its final 15 minutes. Affleck carried that movie and Amy Ryan and Ed Harris were solid in supporting roles, but the direction is only fair. I'll tell you what blew me away tonight, completely unexpectedly. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Watch out for that one! What a beautiful, extraordinary, remarkable film. Check out the blog, the chart's been updated! www.theinsneider.blogspot.com

comment #56

Josh Massey says ...

"...but I don't feel Michael Clayton was the stuff Oscars are made of."

I didn't say it was the stuff Oscars are made of, I said it was my favorite film of the year. Those two things haven't meshed since 1991.

comment #57

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Darth: The ambiguity is restored/underscored by the final scene (SPOILER) An eight out of ten. Not a ten. By the only guy who saw the face.

I am still exhilarated by Zodiac; I walked out of it that afternoon thinking it was indeed an all-timer. My opinion upon multiple DVD viewers has been solidified in the intervening months. (note: my opinion, all you definitive bloviaters that claim this or that "is" something or "is not" something.)

I lust for the director's cut.

comment #58

Aris P says ...

jeffmcm -- "The reception Silence of the Lambs received"??? You mean the 4 or 5 Oscars? Yeah that's what pushed Demme and Foster away. Actually what pushed them away was Demme deciding he didnt want to revisit the story b/c he wasnt interested in a sequel (from what i've read), and Foster not wanting to b/c she didnt like where Harris took her character in the second book.

As far as the homophobic thing -- i think it's open to debate, but if it WAS part of it, then yes, that makes it okay.

comment #59

BurmaShave says ...

To address jeffmcm's highjack of this thread, is Buffalo Bill even gay? I would suggest we all consult the speech at the end of PSYCHO.

comment #60

carla kolchak says ...

BurmaShave is right. If you drew the conclusion that Buffalo Bill was gay, that says more about YOU than it does about the film, where his sexuality is not addressed.

comment #61

christian says ...

Wasn't Buffalo Bill reallly just a fictional psychopath?

comment #62

wda says ...

A fictional psychopath partly based on Ed Gein--who did make a woman suit, although he made it out of freshly buried women.

Also, even if Buffalo Bill was gay, the notion that a film qualifies as homophobic if it merely portrays a gay character as villainous or evil is quite patronizing.

comment #63

Filthy Rich says ...

Silence of the Lambs had an uncurrent of homophobia??? Why because we didn't portray the crazy serial killer with enough sensitivity? Because all homosexuals are perfect and should be portrayed that way?

So Blade Runner was probably less than perfect because the character of Deckard through Rachel up against the window and made her say, "I want you to kiss me."

And Heat was less than perfect because one of the men on DeNiro's team hit a security guard while robbing the bank?

People who want want everything to be sanitized and criminals portrayed sensitively should watch Oprah, not films about real life or even drama that is supposed to ring true.

comment #64

Filthy Rich says ...

...Deckard threw not through Rachel up against the window...

comment #65

dre says ...

Right now it's between Zodiac and Jesse James as my numero uno. I don't think it matters where it is on peoples list - be it top 20 or top 10 - but its hard to argue the movie should be getting a lot more Oscar consideration than it has been getting as of late

comment #66

rocco says ...

Once someone starts proclaiming their opinion is fact, you have to wonder what they're trying to sell.

Repeating it over and over won't make it so.

Unfortunately, a "perfect" movie can not have, in the lead, a weak, one-note, performance. Nor can it be boring.

And 'Heat'? Love it...engaging, thrilling, etc, etc...I stop to watch it every time I see it on tv...but it features the apex of bad Pacino acting and some of the WORST, most laughable dialogue of any admired film I can recall. "Brother, you are going DOWN"

comment #67

Filthy Rich says ...

Jame Gumm had applied for sexual re-assignment or sex change surgery to be made into a female and was turned down because of psychological problems. Therefore the character was gay.

It is absolutely ludricrous and idiotic to say the film was homophobic, even slightly, because that person turned out to be a serial killer.

There have been gay murderers and serial killers. There have been straight serial killers.

Therefore under jeffmcm's view any movie with a straight serial killer is heterophobic. Like Zodiac.

I'm so sick of morons insisting on lame political correctness in film and literature. Let's portray all muslims as good people because none of them are terrorists while we're at it.

comment #68

KeithNYC says ...

"And 'Heat'? Love it...engaging, thrilling, etc, etc...I stop to watch it every time I see it on tv...but it features the apex of bad Pacino acting and some of the WORST, most laughable dialogue of any admired film I can recall. "Brother, you are going DOWN""

I agree. Pacino's over acting was my one minor problem with the film. I thought Jeff posted that scenes were cut where Pacino was snorting cocaine and this may explain his sudden silly outbursts. Were these scenes on the DVD? Am I completely imagining this?

comment #69

DarthCorleone says ...

York "Budd" Durden>> Yes, the final scene restores the ambiguity to a slight extent, but relative to the momentum of the film and certainly relative to the facts of the case, it's not quite enough for me personally. And even though they have Mageau giving his confidence an "8," the conviction in his voice is not an "8." Just one guy's opinion...

comment #70

berg says ...

ZODIAC DIRECTOR'S CUT ... watching the director's cut I was trying to figure out what scenes were added, what is longer ... the scene with Downey Jr in the car outside the bar - was that in the original, and the scene where the cops are giving the reasons for the warrant over the phone seems much longer ... but the one scene that is great and is added it the total black out with only sound that advances the story several years ... we hear janis ian we hear all sorts of songs from the era and newscast blurbs, only all against a black screen, it is like the beginning of Contact, only the screen is black ...

comment #71

romeoisbleeding says ...

The scene with Downey in the car outside the bar is not in the original. Glad to hear it made the directors cut. Thanks.

comment #72

carla kolchak says ...

'Jame Gumm had applied for sexual re-assignment or sex change surgery to be made into a female and was turned down because of psychological problems. Therefore the character was gay.'

Whut?! Applying for sex-change surgery doesn't mean you're gay! Lawdy... LOL

comment #73

frankbooth says ...

That was a coherent sentence, T.

You're slipping.

comment #74

T. Holly says ...

OK, anything I should get to appease you while I'm picking up "The Quiet Girl" (per The Bu) at Barnes et Noble in The Grove, since I have to go to hell and gone anyway tonight? Jeff Mira, you're not a schmuck, you work nights, and you chase fresh college tail on the weekends, remember?

comment #75

MilkMan says ...

T. Holly: if you have some time, pay a visit to Anne Thompson's site and read what she has to say about the Carrot Top/PTA story.

Read it and weep.

comment #76

T. Holly says ...

Ahead of you by hours. It's your account to a T. Anne's probably calling all over, "who's this Milkman?" And Singer looks like he grew into his Humpty Dumpty size head.

comment #77

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

The women in this thread don't seem to appreciate un film de David Fincher. Quelle surprise...lol.

comment #78

DarthCorleone says ...

Milkman>> Seeing as how I questioned the truth of your story and was genuinely curious about it, I went over to Anne's site and read her account. Her portrayal of it doesn't have quite the same vibe as yours. That is, I can see PTA playing a prank like that, but my question was whether he was as arrogant as you made him sound. (Also, I think that list of directors she gave isn't the exact same list you originally cited.) Anyway, I'd like to read the poem/song for myself. Too bad she didn't have a copy anymore.

comment #79

malibugigolo says ...

T Holly:

I'd say over Hoeg get:

A View of the Ocean/De Hartog
The Little Girl and the Cigartte/Duteurtre

Contemporary European fiction is the way to go, outside of Hoeg, the books check in at about 180 pages. The right length for a novel.

What should I read?

comment #80

malibugigolo says ...

CitizenKanedforChewingGum-

"The women in this thread don't seem to appreciate un film de David Fincher. Quelle surprise...lol"

Nor do men.

Boys, well speak for yourself.

comment #81

le corbeau says ...

I agree. Pacino's over acting was my one minor problem with the film.

Everyone who says this about Pacino in Heat is missing the fact that he only overacts at moments when his character is "performing" for somebody, when he's being larger than life or deliberately intimidating. When he's talking to his family or his fellow cops, he's far more quiet (not to mention melancholy). Granted, Pacino's idea of quiet is bigger than yours or mine, but still, all his Big Al moments are at times when his character is putting on a front and a show.

comment #82

OddDuck says ...

In the commentary on the special edition Heat DVD, Mann comments on the "overacting", noting that in his research for the movie, he met a lot of detectives who would act like that - kinda goofy and bombastic - when questioning suspects, because it throws people for a loop, gets them off kilter and more likely to slip up and say something they wouldn't otherwise.

comment #83

carla kolchak says ...

The women in this thread don't seem to appreciate un film de David Fincher. Quelle surprise...lol.

Well, I'm female and I loved Se7en. I liked Zodiac. I just didn't think it was all that.

comment #84

christian says ...

Maybe you didn'tget the memo, Carla. "Incontestable."

comment #85

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

The discussion of Zodiac's merits or lack of has long been drowned out by the sounds of tideous wanking. I don't think the discussion ever quite got started before it veered into self love territory.

comment #86

Zimmergirl says ...

"There have been gay murderers and serial killers. There have been straight serial killers."

Just because I'm a psycho who knows shit like this, I'll name the gay serial killers I know:

John Wayne Gacy
Jeffrey Dahmer

The problem I had with Jaime Gumm was that if he were a true gay serial he would be killing men or boys. Straight serial killers (male) kill women I believe. So why did Jaime Gumm kill women? "This one likes to skin his humps." But really, he didn't. He was definitely the weak link in that film but it is a perfect film nonetheless.

comment #87

wda says ...

'So why did Jaime Gumm kill women? "This one likes to skin his humps." But really, he didn't. '

Yes he did. He was killing women because he wanted to make a woman suit out of them that he could wear, since he coulnd't get the sex change operation.

Ed Gein, the basis for Jame Gumb, made a woman suit out of freshly buried women that he dug up. He was caught when he killed a woman impulsively.

comment #88

wda says ...

Snippets from the Wikipedia entry on Ed Gein:

"Gein eventually admitted under questioning that he would dig up the graves of recently buried middle-aged women he thought resembled his mother and take the bodies home, where he tanned their skin to make his macabre possessions. One writer describes Gein's practice of putting on the tanned skins of women as an 'insane transvestite ritual'.... Shortly after his mother's death, Gein decided he wanted a sex change, although it is a matter of some debate whether or not he was transsexual; by most accounts, he created his 'woman suit' so he could pretend to be his mother, rather than change his sex."

Gein inspired not only the character Buffalo Bill, but also Norman Bates and Leatherface.

comment #89

Zimmergirl says ...

Well, there are references in Silence to Jaime Gumb being gay, "they were lovers you see." Whereas I don't think such a thing was ever revealed about Gein. Just watched PSYCHO and they definitely have him being not gay, rather attracted to the woman he kills. There is no indication that Jaime Gumb is sexually attracted to the women...

comment #90

K. Bowen says ...

Zodiac is a great, great film. So far this year, with a few left out there, it's Jesse James and Zodiac, and a significant chasm.

I never took anything in the film to be definitive in pointing the finger. I think the ambiguity never leaves.

comment #91

wda says ...

Zimmergirl: I agree--I definitely don't think Gumb is attracted to the women he kills. His motivation is purely pragmatic--he wants to make a "woman suit" out of real women. He selects large girls so that the suit will fit his frame and he starves them in the well before killing them so their skin will hang a bit loosely and will be easier to remove.

comment #92

DavidF says ...

I'm late to the game, but whatever.

I've never seen the homophobic angle in Silence of the Lambs. It may be there if you want to see it but I don't think it was anyone''s intent at any level.

As for whether Gumb's sexuality is addressed in the story, it certainly is: Lecter tells Clarice, " Billy's not a real transsexual, but he thinks he is. He tries to be. He's tried to be a lot of things, I expect."

That's pretty explicit.
I always took that to mean that he is NOT gay. He is fucked up in several ways (including sexually) but he is not homosexual. Since a heck of a lot of American serial killers tend to be males who kill women, I don't see anything remarkable about Gumb's proclivities/confusion, nor do I see "homophobia" in the storytelling.

comment #93

Jay T. says ...

I loved it... but a lot of people I know didn't feel the same way. Not sure why, exactly.

comment #94

hatchetface says ...

"Just wait twenty, thirty years and watch it again. You'll see what I mean."

I'm curious: What have you waited 20-30 years to watch again that wasn't a cartoon, kid's movie or after-school special? Are you 50+ years old?

comment #95

christian says ...

I watched THE GOONIES again 20 years later...and it was even worse if that's possible.