• Hollywood Elsewhere •

“A rarity and a gem...Hollywood Elsewhere is the first thing I go to every morning.” —Ann Hornaday, Washington Post

Zodiac finally

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 09, 2007 at 03:42 PM

David Fincher's Zodiac (Paramount, 3.2) is a knockout. I felt pleasantly drugged (like I'd taken an art-film quaalude) after seeing it. It's my idea of entertaining and then some -- it's absorbing, sharp, edge-of- the-seat stuff -- although it's not really "entertainment." Not in a hoi polloi, whoo-whoo, pass-the-popcorn sense. Which is why certain voices on the Paramount publicity team have been skittish about showing it.

I guess they're afraid that Zodiac's unusualness (particularly its lack of a conven- tional catch-the-killer finale) may result in iffy buzz or a not-big-enough haul on its first weekend in theatres, which is only three weeks away. The nervous nellies may be right (or half-right), but anyone who doesn't see Zodiac is going miss one of the most oddly arresting and excitingly different cop thrillers of all time.

What it is, most definitely, is a commercial art film of the highest order -- an existential police procedural about one of the most notorious "cold" investigations in U.S. history. It's especially haunting for me because it doesn't have a finale that conventionally "pays off." It's a movie about the unsolvability of some things -- about how some riddle or intrigue will sometimes excite you and then turn around and mess with you big-time, and then finally deny a sense of closure. I don't exactly know why I think it's a better film because of this. I just know that a film as assured, well honed and tightly packed as this one deserves to be seen at least two if not three times.

Zodiac is based on two best-sellers by Robert Graysmith, "Zodiac" and "Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America's Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed," which are first-hand accounts about the hunt for the Zodiac killer who terrified the San Francisco area in 1968 and '69.

The chief Zodiac hunters in the film (as they were in actual life) are Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist at the time (and later a novelist), a blunt-spoken, never-say-die San Francisco detective named Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), his low-ley but super-focused partner William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and a Chronicle reporter named Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.)

(Toschi is understood to have been the real-life model that Steve McQueen based his tough-nut San Francisco detective on in the 1968 Peter Yates film Bullitt. And of course, the Zodiac killer was the model for Andy Robinson's psycho killer in Dirty Harry , the 1971 Don Siegel-Clint Eastwood classic...right down to the Zodiac claim about wanting to kill a busload of school children.)

Zodiac is partly about the thrill and fascination of the hunt (the scores of hints and clues that pile up are more and more fascinating as the story moves along), and partly about how the complex, seemingly never-ending nature of the case makes Graysmith, Toschi, Armstrong and Avery go a bit nuts.

Is there such a thing as being too determined to stop evil? At what point do you ease up and say, "I've done all I can." Is it always essential to finish what you've started? Should never-say-die always be the motto, even at great personal cost?

Unshowy, exquisitely measured and assembled like a perfect watch, Zodiac is about how the difficulty of cracking a complex case never has the slightest inhibiting effect on the investigators. They just keep at it until the damn thing turns around and starts to eat them, and still they don't stop. The victims, in other words, aren't just the ones who get shot or stabbed or otherwise killed.

Zodiac isn't just about sleuthing. Deep down I think it's a metaphor piece about obsessions wherever you find them, and how the never-quit theme applies to heavily-driven creative types (novelists, painters, architects, musicians) as much as cops or cartoonists or stamp collectors or baseball-card traders.

Zodiac and Se7en have at least a couple of things in common: both are heavily focused on the bottled-up emotions and personal frustrations of their two main protagonists, and both films end on a note in which the "crime doesn't pay" motto doesn't exactly ring out from the belltower.

It's the most masterly film of Fincher's career. He doesn't seem to be pushing or selling or manipulating anything here -- he's just got a good grip on the material, and is letting it play itself out according to its own rhyme.

All I know is that I couldn't get enough of it -- it ticks like a metronome and sucks you in without really delivering anything stand-out spectacular in the way of mind-blowing finales, pull-out-the-stops performances (which isn't to take anything away from the actors, who are damn near perfect) or shocking plot turns. It scores primarily by just being a great piece of filmmaking.

Paramount's decision to not release Zodiac at the end of '06 was, due respect, not swift. It's not an Academy-type film, but it easily would have landed on several ten-best lists, which could obviously have helped with the ad campaign. A critic friend is calling Zodiac's 3.2.07 release "the most ridiculous [call] for a major Hollywood film that I've ever observed -- certainly in our era where, in general, the first four or so months of the year are a dumping ground for crap."

This guy wrote me this morning and called Zodiac "a high masterpiece." I wrote back and said, "I agree with you 120 %...it's brilliant...a masterpiece of sorts. Doomed to fail with the gorillas, but still...."

The guy wrote back and said that Zodiac is "a complete work of art -- easily one of the most impressive procedural movies ever made in this country. What I think you'll find is that as the film observes -- not so much the killer -- as those piecing together the pieces and clues, and nearly losing their lives and minds in the process...well, the film itself is a product of the same obsession as the characters, resulting in a remarkably rare example of story, subject, theme and filmmaking becoming an organic whole.

"I think that's the key to the film's extraordinary intelligence, and why Fincher jettisons nearly every stylistic device and post-modern inclination he's previously loved (I'm thinking especially of Fight Club, of course, but also Se7en, which this film will be endlessly compared and contrasted to...)

"[People will] notice how thoroughly the film feels and walks and breaths like a 70s work -- far more than just a re-creation of the '70s, or a loving re-capturing of the '70s, but completely grounded in the '70s, from the flattened-out institutional lighting seen in Lumet's films (which this most recalls, like Prince of the City), the long chapter-endiing fade-outs, David Shire's magnificent score that brings his Conversation music back to life (what a touch that is!) and the film's balance of movie-star scenes and social reality. All of it without a shred of affectation or clever cultural quotation.

"I really can't heap enough praise on this thing, and I'll tell ya....Paramount was out of its freaking mind to hold this over to 2007. Maybe the whole DreamWorks business was clouding people's judgment, but my god!! Zodiac would have certainly been a major contender in critics awards. It's just beyond me that Paramount is now effectively dumping this into early March, after once considering January(!!!) ...Utterly astounding.

"Perhaps, but possibly this absurd early March opening might have the result of ensuring that the film actually does better at the b.o. since absolutely nothing else in its class is opening. Mass audience, no way. But wow, this movie just keeps working in your mind. It's made with such care, attention, perception, detail and sense of what comprises great moviemaking.

He said he loved that Fincher "is no longer displaying the need to be noticed that I detected in his earlier work. He approached this not only with total confidence, as someone who knows the story up one side and down the other, but also as a Californian. It contains such a rock-ribbed sense of what it was to be a Californian during that period, and a Bay Area resident.

"The San Francisco presented here runs so counter to the city of cultural cliche, here one dominated by white guys -- was there a black face on screen? No counter-culturalists, no hippies, no freaks -- unless you want to count Downey's Paul, but he was still an ink-stained wretch only with a hip style sense and an upscale taste in drugs. In this way, again, it reminded me so much of The Conversation, but also Alan Pakula's 70s films. In a way, the SFPD stuff was based in Lumet-land, while the Chronicle stuff was based in Pakula-land, while never feeling like the movie was ripping off or stealing from these or other directors. I could go on...."

One small beef: Graysmith is a very strongly written guy with a lot of struggle and frustration inside -- the pressure on him just builds and builds. But in a script I read last year, Graysmith had a great "release" scene at the end when he delivers a spellbinding 12-page oratory that ties up all the loose ends about who and what Zodiac is and was. (I was reminded of Simon Oakland's this-is-what-actually- happened speech at the end of Psycho.)

This scene acted as a kind of climax, but Fincher hasn't used it. The finale -- the film itself -- would have been stronger if he had.

Comments

The speech at the end of Psycho has gotten alot of flack over the years. Some say it's completely unnecessary, maybe Fincher thought the same way?

Anyways, great review Jeff, I can't wait to be completely drawn in for 3 hours(?), and i'm also looking forward to Harris Savides and Fincher's overall look.

Posted by: Geoff at February 9, 2007 06:42 PM

"...one of the most oddly arresting and excitingly different cop thrillers of all time"? "...deserves to be seen two if not three times"?

The language in this piece reminds me of Jeff's early-bird rave of "Children of Men". My already-high interest just skyrocketed.

Posted by: Gabriel at February 9, 2007 06:47 PM

Nice review Jeff, one of your best since I've been reading the site. Looking forward to the film, and to a more sedate David Fincher.

Of course that ending in Psycho is widely considered one of the worst endings to a great movie in movie history. I would also nominate the otherwise stunning L.A. CONFIDENTIAL's disappointing, seemingly make the studios happy, nearly a spoof of itself it feels so tacked on ending.

Posted by: The Movie Man at February 9, 2007 07:00 PM

"David Fincher's Zodiac (Paramount, 3.2) is a knockout."

Ten demerits for using the term "knockout" in a review that wasn't about a boxing movie :)

Posted by: EDouglas at February 9, 2007 07:01 PM

I loved Jamie Vanderbilt's script. Can't wait.

Posted by: MASON at February 9, 2007 07:02 PM

The only reason the ending of Psycho is considered 'bad' is because the rest of the movie is such an extreme masterpiece. It's a perfectly ok scene that, with its insistence on banal explanation, nicely sets up the _real_ last scene of the movie, which undercuts everything explained by the psychiatrist and ends the movie on a note of total dissolution and uncertainty.

Posted by: jeffmcm at February 9, 2007 07:06 PM

I'm trying to visualize Wells' review of Norbit had he gotten laid the night of that screening.

Posted by: Ju-osh at February 9, 2007 07:24 PM

The excitement among cinephiles for this movie is palpable. Not only because 2006 ended so poorly, but because Fincher has been MIA for 5 years. If it's as good as Jeff (and this mysterious "critic") says it is, Zodiac may just have a Silence of the Lambs durability that carries it into next year's awards season. Fincher is respected on an almost Scorsese/Spielberg level among directors and I sense that people have been waiting for him to find a project that's worthy of his talent (Seven and Fight Club were great, but somewhat immature). Anyway, I can't wait.

Posted by: JD at February 9, 2007 07:27 PM

"Deep down I think it's a metaphor piece about obsessions wherever you find them, and how the never-quit theme applies to heavily-driven creative types..."

I guess we can chalk Jeff up a "heavily-driven creative type" after his Down With Eddie campaign.

Great review, can not wait to see this thing.

Posted by: dre at February 9, 2007 07:34 PM

Movie Man, which bit of the LA Confidential ending are you referring to? Cos if you mean the bit with White sitting in the car and Exley talking to him, it pretty much matches the ending of the book. So the studio could hardly be accused of tacking it on.

Posted by: Arran at February 9, 2007 07:41 PM

Thumbs up to Fincher for going with David Shire, a hugely talented composer who, agist as Hollywood can be, hasn't been given the A-list assignments he once had i.e. All the President's Men, The Conversation, etc.

Posted by: Dixon Steele at February 9, 2007 08:14 PM

Great review! wow.. you have me aching to see it. I really cannot wait. I don't know if you read these comments or reply but can you tell me how Downey was in it? I have heard he is pretty good. Thanx!

Posted by: romeoisbleeding at February 9, 2007 08:14 PM

I don't have the script on me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Graysmith's explanation to Toschi at the diner is essentially the speech from the earlier draft moved to a more intimate setting. According to Vanderbilt, they weren't out to convict Arthur Leigh Allen, but to lay out the facts and let the audience make up its own mind. Done the other way, I think it would've felt a bit too JFK.

Posted by: Jeremy Smith at February 9, 2007 08:19 PM

wow jeff, great review...one of your best. i cannot wait to see this movie. fincher is one of my absolute favorites.

Posted by: actionman at February 9, 2007 09:36 PM

Although Zodiac is never boring, I found myself frustrated with the overall shapelessness of it, and its almost total lack of drama (despite occasional suspense). The idea that the main characters are eaten away by their so-called obsession is hinted at, but it's way too generous to say the film actually puts this across effectively. Let's see...we have Graysmith, whose evolution as a character moves from point A to...maybe point C; we have Avery, who, as played by Downey in a typically mannered turn, is a kooky alcoholic from the get-go; and we have the Ruffalo character, who is consistently no-nonsense throughout. Where's the deterioriation? Where's the ruin? Where's the angst? Somewhere on the cutting-room floor, perhaps? I guess it's high praise to say the director of S**t Club and Seven can exercise restraint, but somewhere along the way this movie could have used a little passion.

Posted by: erniesouchak at February 9, 2007 09:46 PM

Jeff -- this is your "Miami Vice" part deux. Zodiac is a fine movie, with great production design, some nice performances and individual set pieces -- but ending up on a number of critics top ten lists? You're kidding right? Sure, out of like 150 of them...

Posted by: wholovesya at February 9, 2007 09:50 PM

To JD: "Not only because 2006 ended so poorly,"

What? Did you get forced into seeing "Night at the Museum" 3 times and top it off with "Happy Feet?" I saw a year pull a complete 180 and save itself. "Casino Royale", "Letters From Iwo Jima", "Children of Men" and "Pans Labyrinth" salvaged everything. It's just too damn bad "Zodiac" didn't get to join their ranks. Can't wait for it. Lord knows there isn't anything else to see now.

Posted by: Undercover Brother at February 9, 2007 10:33 PM

"What? Did you get forced into seeing "Night at the Museum" 3 times and top it off with "Happy Feet?"

Haha no kidding. After having a great time with James Bond of all characters, I'd say 2006 is perfectly fine.

Posted by: Geoff at February 9, 2007 10:48 PM

Jeff:

You quoted the "review" I sent into Aint it Cool back in June and now that you've seen the film it would seem what you wrote really jibes with my thoughts on the film. The film just wears you down but in a way that's completely cathartic. Even in rough-cut form it was the best film I saw all last year. I'm quite jazzed to see the film again in a few weeks as it sounds like much of what I found so appealing about the film remains.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23688 (mine's the 2nd one)

Posted by: ASD at February 9, 2007 11:44 PM

The themes of this movie sound similar to a really good HBO telepic that came out about 10 years ago: Citizen X. Stephen Rea played a Russian cop attempting to track down a serial killer, when the official government position was that such things couldn't exist in the Soviet Union. He uses primitive forensic and profiling techniques and the government won't let him get the FBI for a consult. As a result, the hunt takes many years and it grinds him down as he continues to investigate one child death after another.

If Zodiac is anywhere near as good as Citizen X, I'll be impressed.

Posted by: Rich S. at February 10, 2007 04:40 AM

Arran-No specific scene in L.A. Confidential, just the ending as a whole. For a film about corruption in all places, the ending seemed a little overly hunky dory for me, White lives against nearly impossible odds, White and Bracken ride off together despite the constant volleying between White and Exley, it just seemed like a lot to buy for a film that, up until that point, had been so bracingly cynical about how things work especially "justice." I love that movie, but the theme would have worked better if Exley had plugged Dudley in the back...and paid the price for it. I have not read the book, so on that matter, I can't say.

More on topic, Zodiac sounds a little like the Korean film "Memories of Murder" too.

Posted by: The Movie Man at February 10, 2007 05:04 AM

Glad to hear that this was so good. I'm a big fan of Fincher's work.

I hope Fincher isn't headed for Kubrick territory with the five years between movies.

The Prince Of The City reference was a nice one

Posted by: Piper71 at February 10, 2007 07:14 AM

How far along is Fincher's 'Benjamin Button'? Could it make it onto screens by December?

The reason I ask is, maybe Paramount is dreaming that Fincher could have the kind of 2007 that Soderbergh had in 2000, with 'Erin Brokovich' in March and 'Traffic' during awards season. The result: two Best Picture nods and two director nods, one of which produced a statue.

Anyway, the release date is indeed mystifying, but it's not unprecedented. And the only way to solve the "winter is a dumping ground" problem is to – duh! – release some better movies before May. I, for one, am looking forward to March this year being a little less crappy.

Posted by: Chris Molanphy at February 10, 2007 07:31 AM

Movie Man:
Great shout-out for a great film. He's right, folks.

If you're interested in seeing a police investigation/search for a serial killer story told more as a character study than a flashy gadget showroom, with great acting (it stars Kang-ho Song from 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengence' and 'The Host'), superb direction (from Joon-ho Bong, the director of 'The Host'), check out 'Memories of Murder'. It is considered by many to be the best film to come out of Korea in the past couple of decades!

Link for purchase or rental:
http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=108609&element=memories+of+murder

Posted by: Ju-osh at February 10, 2007 07:49 AM

Button is filming right now, and has been for a little while, so I imagine he could get it into theaters this year (there may be a release date, I haven't checked).

I agree with Wells big time here. I loved this movie. And I guess this means there's no review embargo!

Posted by: Devin Faraci at February 10, 2007 07:50 AM

Good call Rich...'Citizen X' is a haunting and expertly made film. I'm almost afraid to watch it again for fear of ruining the impression it left on me ten years ago....

Re: Zodiac...I'm intrigued by Wells' ascertion that this film lacks closure, not just in an accurate rettling-sense, but in terms of the characters...so many things in life lack closure while so many films desperately try to be self-contained 2-hour little universes.

Posted by: delbomber at February 10, 2007 08:13 AM

...sorry, 'assertion' and 'retelling,' that's what i meant to write..

Posted by: delbomber at February 10, 2007 08:15 AM

Movie Man,

The ending (with Exley, White, and Braken) of LA Confidential comes straight from the book. In the book Exley says to White "You were my salvation," which is sort of the point of the story, especially in the book.

What seemed tacked on was the interogation scene with Exley, where there's a lot of exposition trying to explain the somewhat convoluted story to mainstream audiences.

I once read where William Goldman said the movie should have ended with Exley shooting Dudley Smith in the back and raising his badge as the patrol cars storm in, and that would have been a better ending.

Btw, if one really wants to appreciate the movie LA Confidential, they should read the book. It's a freaking miracle they pulled a cogent story from that crazy-ass book. I loved the Elroy books but when I heard they were making a movie of LAC I thought "Impossible."

I can't wait to see ZODIAC. I've been looking forward to it for a long time.

Posted by: CambridgeCat at February 10, 2007 09:40 AM

fincher has yet to move me but i'll see this for what it looks like.

and movie man is right again. the ending of LAC just feels like a studio add-on. it made me not like the film.

Posted by: christian at February 10, 2007 10:34 AM

So excited.

Posted by: Reint at February 10, 2007 02:06 PM

FINCHER

FINCHER IS GOD, JESUS, THE ANTI CHRIST AND SATAN ALL ROLLED INTO ONE.

lets give that key lime pie it's day in court.

Posted by: aspiringcrackaddict at February 10, 2007 05:14 PM

FINCHER

FINCHER IS GOD, JESUS, THE ANTI CHRIST AND SATAN ALL ROLLED INTO ONE.

lets give that key lime pie its day in court.

Posted by: aspiringcrackaddict at February 10, 2007 05:15 PM

"Perhaps, but possibly this absurd early March opening might have the result of ensuring that the film actually does better at the b.o. since absolutely nothing else in its class is opening."

Zodiac won't be a hit, because Jake Gyllenhall is not a box office draw, and they should have cast a bigger co-star to help sell it better. Seven was partly a success because of Morgan Freeman, since Pitt was still relatively new at the time he was given the lead. Ironically, by the time Fight Club came out, Pitt was bigger than Norton, even though he wasn't the lead in that one. But either way, Pitt's name helped recoup the film's losses on home video. Zodiac doesn't have anyone big in it, and is depending solely on Fincher's name to deliver. It'll probably do as well as Suspect Zero.

wholovesya: "Jeff -- this is your "Miami Vice" part deux."

I think Zodiac's going to be better than Miami Vice, since it isn't re-writing a classic show, but it lacks the potential appeal that Miami Vice might have had.

Posted by: D.Z. at February 10, 2007 08:51 PM

Not every movies need to have big star.Little Miss Sunshine doesn't have one big star, but it still became a big hit. And right now,the only young actor who is appropriate to play Graysmith is Jake Gyllenhaal, he fits the role very well, form the news, he is the first and last choice Fincher made.

Posted by: bluesea at February 10, 2007 09:28 PM

Sounds like Emanuel Levy is with Wells on this one. While this is not a whole review, you can see he liked the movie alot. The whole review is coming soon he says.

http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=944

Posted by: romeoisbleeding at February 11, 2007 07:56 AM

I think Jamie Vanderbilt is the real deal! Outside of Buster Keaton, if you are going to make a movie where the actors use words, you need somebody that knows how to write and tell a story.
In olden times, we had Faulkner, Hemmingway, Hammet, Dorthy Parker, S.J. Perelman, Kaufman, Benchley, Ferber, etc, who knew how to use a typewriter. Unlike that "Sliver","Basic Instict", guy...Joe something.
And I assume that failure of any mention of my involvement in this movie is either a typo, or a clerical oversite...

Dave Achelis

Posted by: misterachelis at February 13, 2007 01:49 AM

Mr. Wells,
I really enjoyed your review and I CANNOT wait to see Zodiac! This is really superb timing for me as I have endeavored to write an exhausting critique on the life and works of David Fincher. I've spent the last five months digging into his bio information and it's a project I've wanted to do for the last five years. After writing a bio thesis on author Bret Easton Ellis, I feel like I'm ready. Your references to the obsession that artists get caught up in really hit home. If you have any pointers on how to track Fincher down for a phone interview, I'd really appreciate it. He is not an easy man to locate, and even more difficult to land an interview with. Thank you so much for your time and again, superb writing on the review. Sincerely,

Tom Waters
Night Life Magazine
bigwordsmailbag@yahoo.com

Posted by: tomwaters at February 18, 2007 05:15 AM

Posted by: kukuxz at June 5, 2007 10:04 PM