comment #1

Walter Sobchak says ...

Okay, I had my suspicions but now it's clear. Jeffrey's trying to establish himself as a player. Not that I doubt his love for "Zodiac", but this is getting silly. It's become obvious that he's determined to get behind a dark horse-ish movie and pimp the hell out of it for an Oscar nomination for Best Picture.

Then, if somehow "Zodiac" does get the nom, it becomes something like this: "'Zodiac', a film championed by online blogger Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood-Elsewhere.Com, has gotten an unexpected nod for Best Picture. Many feel that a groundswell of support, led by Wells and others, helped give the film the boost it needed to put it over top, besting out others such as 'Juno' and 'Charlie Wilson's War'. Let's talk to this hot new Hollywood power broker. Let's welcome Jeffrey Wells. Good evening, Jeffrey. Nice shirt!"

comment #2

Geoff says ...

I saw ZODIAC way back in the beginning of the damn year and this Tuesday's Director's Cut will probably be the sixth or seventh time I've watched the film. I've let it digest for a while now and not once have I doubted its staying power. 10 years from now it's still going to be great. Hopefully more people feel the way I do by then.

The fact that it came out so long ago and is on the critc's list is very telling and unique. I don't mind Jeff reminding us of this fact, especially when the recent NO COUNTRY, BLOOD, and JESSE JAMES made my head explode.

comment #3

Arran says ...

Your championing of a fine film is admirable Jeff, but I gotta go with Joe here. Your constant harping on is not going to make a difference either way. I'm not saying Zodiac is out of the race, but you will not make one iota of difference. Drop. It.

comment #4

EOTW says ...

I don't know, fellas. Didn't Wells single handedly stop Eddie Murphy from getting his Oscar?

comment #5

swordandpen says ...

This movie will suffer the same fate as Seven and Fight Club, in which it will not be nominated, but remembered long after most of the nominees will be forgotten.

comment #6

JHRussell says ...

There seems to be little consensus on Best Picture once you get past NCFOM and Juno, and I am started to question the support for them, too, so I think that championing a film actually makes sense this year...people, including Oscar voters, seem to be looking at about 10 films now for Best Pic, and the failure of so many holiday releases to catch on fire (Atonement, Kite Runner, Charlie Wilson's War, Sweeney Todd) is the main reason for the open race...who knows, the Best Pic list could turn out to be a complete surprise - NCFOM and Juno could get knocked out, too...don't be surprised if we end up with:

There Will Be Blood
The Great Debaters
3:10 to Yuma
Michael Clayton
Zodiac or Eastern Promises

Interesting year...

comment #7

EOTW says ...

JHR, no way does 3:10 to Yuma get in there. No, JUNO gets in cause it's the cute, little indie flick that the Oscars lets into the game every year (see LMS last yeat, FULL MONTY, etc.). Also, I think ZODIAC would get in before EASTERN would. Think it's gonna be more like this (maybe):

TWBB
NCFOM
JUNO
MICHAEL C.

And that 5th slot gets tougher to nail, could be TODD, ATONEMENT.

Too tought to call at this moment.

comment #8

Howlingman says ...

I cannot fathom why everyone's undies get in a knot the way Jeff lobbies for ZODIAC; clearly it was his favorite movie of 2008. It was released at the wrong time of the year with an atrocious ad campaign and faded from general memory. He just wants to see it get a fair shake and if he wants to use his website to campaign for it, what's the big deal?

comment #9

JaySmire says ...

Jeff's obsession with his love for Zodiac is in line with what he loves about the film, "it's a film about obsession". For me that just wasn't a strong enough hook to love the movie.

Unfortunately, just like many of the lead characters in Zodiac who alientate everyone around them with their obsession, so too does Jeff with his "can't let Zodiac go" assault. It has not only affected his judgement it has allowed him to derail and smear other films, e.g. Juno, and lessen his support for films that are much better: No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood.

There is only one thing we know for sure about the nominations to come out in a couple of weeks: Zodiac will not be amongst them.

Sadly, I don't think Jeff will be able to let this go until then. And even then he won't because if Juno gets nominated we'll have to deal with another month of Jeff's unrelenting bashing hoping that his board will weild some magical power over the academy and stop such an injustice.

The fact remains this: If There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, Juno and Sweeney Todd were at least three of the nominated films--I'd say the Academy is doing a heck of a lot better than in year's past.

We don't have front runners this year because the studios haven't been able to do their typical media blitz's due to the strike. This makes it more fun. It is more suspensful this year.
Well...except for Zodiac which we know won't be there.

Still waiting to see if the director's cut makes some magical difference. It probably won't. Just letting HE know that many are getting turned off by the Zodiac worship.

My favorite quote was from someone I know who does like movies a lot. I was telling about this site and all of the Zodiac talk. They said "Zodiac came out this year? Really? God, I hardly remember that film. It was good, but..." Exactly. Ten years remember? I don't think so. But no one who sees "There Will Be Blood" is going to forget that ending. And by the way: it didn't take two viewings for me to see what a masterpiece that was.

comment #10

Howlingman says ...

It amuses because this IS Jeff's obsession ... he's skulking around basements of strange houses, receiving creepy phone calls in the night, losing sleep, doggedly pursuing a case because "he needs to know."

How is it any different than anyone (on this site or others) without a personal stake in one of these potentially nominated films (you know, aside from people who actually worked on them) to see them get their due?

Because movies are an obsession. They are our obsession. That's why we keep coming back.

comment #11

JHRussell says ...

EOTW: I just want to make sure that you and others understand those are not my predictions nor are they my preferences, merely my perception of the growing lack of consensus on the frontrunner films...it appears to be fairly wide open...and in recent weeks life has been breathed into some films I thought were dead in the water for Oscar (Eastern Promises, Zodiac, and 3:10 to Yuma)...and the formulaic crowd pleaser "The Great Debaters" is being shoved down our throats and seems to be gaining Oscar traction, too...

And I echo Howlingman's sentiments - I have no problems with Jeff championing his favorite films and performances on his blog - I do have problems with his trashing of films and actors that don't fit his world view (notably last year his tasteless trashing of Eddie Murphy and this year his attacks on Clooney and Ellen Page and Juno in general)...

comment #12

le corbeau says ...

Let's look at the nominees analytically. We know Oscar likes certain things. They like critical acclaim-- that means No Country For Old Men, and a reasonable shot for There Will Be Blood, depending on how audiences react this week and next.

They like the British. Atonement is very possible.

They like handicap triumph of the spirit movies. Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

They like plucky little indies that click with audiences. Juno.

They like big stars in challenging (but not TOO) movies. Michael Clayton, maybe, though its box office performance is a knock against it.

They like people they've liked before. That favors Charlie Wilson's War, especially if it makes money.

There is no evidence they especially like serial killer movies (they liked one-- it was Britishy) and they don't have any record of liking David Fincher and they don't like movies that underperform. No Zodiac.

comment #13

p.Vice says ...

Can't we just agree that Zodiac is one of the best films of the year regardless of what the fools in the Academy have to say about it, and let that be that? I surely doubt David Fincher cares about this one-tenth as much as you do, Jeff.

comment #14

mutinyco says ...

Zodiac won't get nominated. Seems to me, based on the Scripter nomination, this push now is about securing a screenplay nomination. And that's basically for posterity. So years later, when people are making a case for the film, it will have at least been recognized with one significant Oscar nod.

comment #15

lazarus says ...

That's kind of ironic, mutiny, in that the screenplay is probably the least interesting or noteworthy element in the film. I mean, we're pretty much talking about the organization and regurgitation of information. If it's able to score as high a nom as screenplay, then why not editing, cinematography, art direction, etc? It's on the technical side that really floored most of the fans of the film. What about a director nod, since a few of the potential BP noms don't have strong or seasoned helmers (Joe Wright, Jason Reitman, Tony Gilroy)?

comment #16

mutinyco says ...

Screenplay simply because that's what's in play. The Scripter nod put it in play.

If it gets ACE or ASC nods, then those categories are in play.

I think Zodiac was kind of a stepping stone for Fincher, so that people would take him more seriously. It's a stepping stone for Button later this year.

comment #17

mizoguchi says ...

Mysteriously, Jeffrey seems to have dropped his support for "Shoot 'Em Up," a film he (alone) was touting as a masterpiece just a few months ago. As repellent as that sadistic piece of tripe, what fun it would be to see it in the Oscar race! So don't disown your enthusiasms, Jeffrey! You can put this one over, too.

comment #18

lazarus says ...

Mutiny, those guild noms may make it more of a likelihood, but these things don't always match up exactly.

And yes, he's going to be in great shape with Buttton, at least if the studio releases and promotes it correctly.

comment #19

mutinyco says ...

Oh yeah. I didn't say if it gets a guild nom it'll get an Oscar nom. Like the Scripter, I simply said nods from those groups simply put those categories into play.

comment #20

lazarus says ...

I was more arguing the reverse--the film can miss a guild nom and still get in at Oscar.

comment #21

Craig Kennedy says ...

On one hand, Zodiac was great and I'd like to see it nominated. On the other hand, I also would like to see NCfOM and TWBB nominated. If two or all three get nominations, I worry they'll appeal to the same group of voters who will cannibalize each other leaving the door open for Atonement or Clayton or Juno or whatever the hell else gets nominated.

But hey, it's Jeff's favorite film. I'd rather see him obsessing about something he he's for than something he's against.

comment #22

austin111 says ...

It's a great movie. It's stayed with me and many others, apparently. Of the films being discussed as likely nominees which do not include this one, generally speaking, this is superior to any with the exceptions of No Country and There Will Be Blood. It's complex and often intense, extremely well acted, and there is a lack of hollywood b.s. that's extremely refreshing. The reason it's being passed over is about box office and the fact that it feels like a film from the '70's, which is hardly a bad thing, quite the reverse, but it's lost on both today's less curious/more clueless audiences consisting of mainly a certain demographic and hollywood, I suppose.

comment #23

romeoisbleeding says ...

A sign of a great movie is that it stays with you for a long long time. I saw No Country and There Will Be Blood and they are great as well but I am not sure I will be thinking of them as much 8 months from now as I still think about Zodiac. And to the people complaining about Jeff being obsessive about Zodiac... so what??? this is his blog and don't you think if it was yours and you really loved something you would be talking about it alot as well! it goes with the turf. If I had the power to help Zodiac get a nomination you better damn well know I would be using it too. I feel grateful that I have it in me to still respond to a movie like Zodiac and be obsessive about it if that is what it you want to call it. It is a joy that I am pleased to be experiencing. I can hardly wait to pull off the wrapper from the directors cut next week. This is what movies are about for me and while I love many movies few resonate with me like Zodiac.

comment #24

Zimmergirl says ...

Oh the hypocrisy. See, everyone acts all above Oscar - like Dargis (who came right out and said it recently) but she is as enamored as anyone else. And Walter S. you got that right. Trying to be a player, though, is a gross understatement: Wells wants to be a primary motivator of the Oscars (it's a common affliction).

comment #25

Craptastic says ...

Someone please remove the needle from the record.

comment #26

Joe Leydon says ...

Look at this weekend's grosses for Juno. Yes, gaze upon its success, Zodiac fans, and despair.

comment #27

christian says ...

Maybe, just maybe, all these films about massive male absorbtion could be buffered by one with a female point of view. I'm just sayin'...

comment #28

rocco says ...

I'll ask again...how can Zodiac be considered a great film when its lead, Gyllenhall, is so weak? It's not secret that Fincher had to work very hard to extract a decent performance from him.

...And I say this as someone who has appreciated some of his past performances...I thought he was excellent in 'Brokeback' and felt he really captured the essence of Peter Parker in the three Spidey flicks...

comment #29

Walter Sobchak says ...

I don't particularly mind Jeff's obsession, (at least it's not a shitty movie), but it does get a little tiresome to come on line and see three new posts and two of them are along the lines of-

"Fred Merkle of the Sioux City Bee Dispatch has named 'Zodiac' the second best movie of the year! The tide is now unstoppable!"

comment #30

christian says ...

"felt he really captured the essence of Peter Parker in the three Spidey flicks..."

And he did by not even appearing in them!

comment #31

jeffmcm says ...

Delbomber has it right, that Gyllenhaal is the weak link of the movie.

Joe Leydon, you've gotta stop doing the thing where you gloat about one movie's financial success and simultaneously mock another movie's financial failure. It is unbecoming of you (or not).

comment #32

Joe Leydon says ...

Christian: But -- seriously -- didn't the producers of the Spider-Man movies actually approach Gyllenhaal when it appeared (briefly) that Maguire might have to bow out of the series because of a back injury?

comment #33

christian says ...

Yes, they did. Raimi and Maguire talk about it in the SP2 commentary. I could see JG as PP.

comment #34

MickTravis says ...

"Gyllenhaal is the weak link of the movie."

I like "Zodiac" and I like Gyllenhaal, but he's disconcertingly bad in the film. Sometimes his character is a genius, sometimes borderline retarded. And when he gets together with Sevigny (another of the film's flawed elements), look out it's just awful.

Can't wait for the SE on Tuesday. I'd mention that A.O. Scott made it his video pick on the Roeper Room this morning, but that might spawn another post on the subject. I can't enable.

comment #35

lazarus says ...

That show would be a lot better with A.O. Scott and Stephen Hunter, who was great when I saw him in the guest seat. Plus he keeps the trademark fat Pulitzer winner thing intact.

comment #36

rocco says ...

christian, I was being facetious...apologies if I'm not picking up on your own facetiousness...I was trying to point out that Jake has exactly one highly praised turn in his entire career and is probably more suited for cartoonish roles (i.e. subbing for Maguire in Spiderman, or sticking to parts like Bubble Boy and Jarhead)...

I have nothing against him, I always root for NY actors (ok, so as it happen NY actors except for his sister), but as Mick points out, he was all over the map in 'Zodiac'..."mildly retarded" is a near perfect summation...his performance and the recurring animal crackers bit detract from an otherwise fantastic film.

Great films usually contain great performances...aside from Downey Jr and Elias Kotais' small role, this film lacked in this area. Maybe it wasn't even the performances so much as the casting...i.e. Ruffalo, who I think is a talented actor...he was too young for his part and in an effort to appear older, crankier, and more cynical, resorted to putting a face on throughout the movie that looked like his was smelling fresh laid manure.

comment #37

christian says ...

I thought you were joshing db, but i couldn't let that opening close even in the face of irony...

comment #38

christian says ...

Oh, and Jake was plain terrific in DONNIE DARKO.

comment #39

Metome says ...

delbomber, Jake has given many great performances. October Sky, The Good Girl, Moonlight Mile and excellent in Donnie Darko, Jarhead, Brokeback and imo Zodiac. If you paid any attention to Robert Graysmith's interviews he said Jake was exactly as he was at the time. Sure RG was promoting the film but he certainly didn't have to go that far in his praise of Jake if Jake did a bad job. Also, Jake can hardly be faulted for the animal crackers but when that was written for Mark Ruffalo's character. Don't know if you were being "funny" about that? However, I do find a lot of "critics" don't pay attention to what they are supposed to be reviewing and make careless comments like that. Attributing things and people and dialogue incorrectly. Makes their "reviews" rather ridiculous especially when they are finding fault with a movie.

comment #40

romeoisbleeding says ...

An interesting review of the Directors Cut for Zodiac just came on line from Daniel Hirshleif. Opening quote says it all very well....

There is a moment in one of the commentaries for Zodiac, David Fincher's 2007 investigation of the infamous Northern California killings of the 60's and 70's, where crime author James Ellory says: "What this movie asks you to do is engage interactively and think, and follow nuance, texture, and inflection in an investigation that does not lead to the next thing directly. It's why people who love this movie go back again and again, because they want to get intellectually engaged."

comment #41

christian says ...

Or they're just anal.