The Personal Recommendation Hall of Fame IV

Tools    






Zodiac (David Fincher 2007)

For me, watching innocent victims being tied up and stabbed to death isgratuitous violence. And yes this was the film I had said I was dubious about.

Even without the disturbing killings, this was a poorly directed movie. Both Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. blew in this. Downey was the same off the wall, nutsy druggie/drunk character that he's played in so many other films. He's like a caricature, good in a comedy-drama but silly in such a serious film.

Gyllenhaal is just a boring actor. I've never really liked him. He had no handle on how to be the odd, cartoonist guy. I was painful aware of his attempts at doing a 'character' and he failed. It was only towards the end of the film when he became obsessed with finding the identity of the Zodiac that his performance rang true.

Mark Ruffalo and his cop partner were any good in this and I did like whoever played Melvin Belli too.

The story itself was lagging, did this really need to be 2 hours and 45 minutes? Zodiac has the same lack luster quality as another disappointing news investigative movie, The Post.

A really good investigative, true crime movie was Spotlight...about child abuse by pedophile Catholic priest...and that film didn't need to show children being horribly abused for shock value. BTW I didn't care for The Social Network and I don't like David Fincher style of direction.


Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot from 2021-08-12 18-44-27.png
Views:	264
Size:	256.5 KB
ID:	80195  



I'm sorry you didn't enjoy Zodiac (not my nomination for you, but a film I hold in generally high regard).

I thought that the combination of true-story narration and some genuine suspense and dread (especially that basement sequence) made for compelling viewing.

I think that this film is after something different than Spotlight. In Zodiac there's the "drier" investigative/journalism stuff and then the disturbing murder stuff. But as the film goes on, those two elements begin to blur and intersect. The mystery doesn't just impact the characters---it consumes big parts of their lives for years and years.



It wasn't my nomination either, but to be honest, I could've considered it, even after reading your disclaimer. For some reason, it doesn't strike me as the kind of film one would chalk up to "gratuitous violence" (even though I acknowledge how freaking disturbing that lake scene is). It's a fine line for sure, so I'm not questioning your reaction to it, but rather how we all perceive things differently and that I'm sure there was no ill intent in whoever nominated it.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



It wasn't my nomination either, but to be honest, I could've considered it, even after reading your disclaimer. For some reason, it doesn't strike me as the kind of film one would chalk up to "gratuitous violence" (even though I acknowledge how freaking disturbing that lake scene is). It's a fine line for sure, so I'm not questioning your reaction to it, but rather how we all perceive things differently and that I'm sure there was no ill intent in whoever nominated it.
Agreed.

I think that CR perhaps takes gratuitous violence to mean extreme or graphic violence, while for others the term might mean violence that is unnecessary or thrown in just to titillate. While Zodiac's violence is upsetting, it feels appropriate to the story, so I could see how someone might have thought it would be okay.



Agreed.

I think that CR perhaps takes gratuitous violence to mean extreme or graphic violence, while for others the term might mean violence that is unnecessary or thrown in just to titillate. While Zodiac's violence is upsetting, it feels appropriate to the story, so I could see how someone might have thought it would be okay.
I think that many MoFos are so desensitized to violence by the movies that they watch, that they don't view brutal killings as shown in Zodiac as much of a big deal. But I don't watch slasher horror films, etc.

As an aside, I don't think showing the killings are necessary or even helpful to the movie's story. The stories focus is that the Zodiac is a conundrum, a puzzling mystery to all. By showing the audience the actual crimes it takes away from the feeling of being in the cops shoes and feeling completely baffled by the mystery, as it makes us privy to what actual happened.



It wasn't my nomination either, but to be honest, I could've considered it, even after reading your disclaimer. For some reason, it doesn't strike me as the kind of film one would chalk up to "gratuitous violence" (even though I acknowledge how freaking disturbing that lake scene is). It's a fine line for sure, so I'm not questioning your reaction to it, but rather how we all perceive things differently and that I'm sure there was no ill intent in whoever nominated it.
I don't think there was any ill intent either. Not at all.


As another aside, maybe "gratuitous violence" wasn't the best term to describe what I was thinking. I meant to say that I don't want to watch freaking disturbing scenes like the couple at the lake.



I think that many MoFos are so desensitized to violence by the movies that they watch, that they don't view brutal killings as shown in Zodiac as much of a big deal. But I don't watch slasher horror films, etc.

As an aside, I don't think showing the killings are necessary or even helpful to the movie's story. The stories focus is that the Zodiac is a conundrum, a puzzling mystery to all. By showing the audience the actual crimes it takes away from the feeling of being in the cops shoes and feeling completely baffled by the mystery, as it makes us privy to what actual happened.
I would actually disagree with this. I think that not showing the killings dehumanizes the whole situation and turns the Zodiac into a fun little puzzle.

Don't get me wrong--I have read and watched many "bloodless" mysteries where characters are killed with a bonk on the head or fall over from poison and the whole point is not the killings, but the detective cleverly figuring things out.

Showing the actual crimes helps us understand the killer as something terrifying and brutal. It increases the urgency of trying to catch him, compounds the tragedy of him eluding capture, and makes the victims real people instead of abstractions.

That said, I can easily see how someone might feel that the level of violence was high enough to make the film unenjoyable. But I think that the violence is necessary for the atmosphere of dread and the deeply personal nature of the story. If anything, I feel as if it puts you more in the shows of the investigators---aware of the brutality, but lacking "the answer" to the whole thing.



I would actually disagree with this. I think that not showing the killings dehumanizes the whole situation and turns the Zodiac into a fun little puzzle.

Don't get me wrong--I have read and watched many "bloodless" mysteries where characters are killed with a bonk on the head or fall over from poison and the whole point is not the killings, but the detective cleverly figuring things out.

Showing the actual crimes helps us understand the killer as something terrifying and brutal. It increases the urgency of trying to catch him, compounds the tragedy of him eluding capture, and makes the victims real people instead of abstractions.

That said, I can easily see how someone might feel that the level of violence was high enough to make the film unenjoyable. But I think that the violence is necessary for the atmosphere of dread and the deeply personal nature of the story. If anything, I feel as if it puts you more in the shows of the investigators---aware of the brutality, but lacking "the answer" to the whole thing.
I disagree, but then again disagreement is the nature of the internet

Spotlight
worked wonderfully without seeing scenes of an old creepy priest molesting a frightened, screaming kid. But even without the Zodiac killing scenes it was a rather uneven and uninspired movie. I did laugh once however. It was when Jake Gyllenhaal goes to interview the former guy worker of the Zodiac, who had once worked with him in an old film theater. Jake goes down into the guy's basement, gets frightened thinking that this guy is the real Zodiac and then runs out of the house only to find a locked door. OMG! The entire scene has a schumcky horror feel to it.



Spotlight [/i][/b]worked wonderfully without seeing scenes of an old creepy priest molesting a frightened, screaming kid.
Agreed (sort of, I was kind of lukewarm on Spotlight), but I think that the films have different goals. The real horror of Spotlight, in my opinion, isn't the molestation, but rather the intentional, malicious conspiracy and cover-up engaged in by the church. The intensity derives from the team uncovering the many layers and coming to understand the depth and scope of the cover-up.

I'm not saying that there's a right or a wrong way to approach what is essentially a story of investigation, but I think that leaving the murders off-screen would lend to a ton of focus on the codes and letters, and it displaces the victims and the sense of dread. Zodiac is also more interested in the way that different characters are consumed by the case, and the toll that obsession takes on them.


But even without the Zodiac killing scenes it was a rather uneven and uninspired movie. I did laugh once however. It was when Jake Gyllenhaal goes to interview the former guy worker of the Zodiac, who had once worked with him in an old film theater. Jake goes down into the guy's basement, gets frightened thinking that this guy is the real Zodiac and then runs out of the house only to find a locked door. OMG! The entire scene has a schumcky horror feel to it.
I think that part of the effectiveness of the film is how it shows the characters essentially imposing themselves into a horror story. But if you aren't vibing with the sense of dread, yeah, I can see not digging it.



...But if you aren't vibing with the sense of dread, yeah, I can see not digging it.
That's a perfect description of what kind of films I don't like. I.E. films that have a heightened sense of dread producing anxiety, like home invasion films. I will not watch home invasion films I don't want to feel anxious for two hours.



I disagree, but then again disagreement is the nature of the internet

Spotlight
worked wonderfully without seeing scenes of an old creepy priest molesting a frightened, screaming kid. But even without the Zodiac killing scenes it was a rather uneven and uninspired movie. I did laugh once however. It was when Jake Gyllenhaal goes to interview the former guy worker of the Zodiac, who had once worked with him in an old film theater. Jake goes down into the guy's basement, gets frightened thinking that this guy is the real Zodiac and then runs out of the house only to find a locked door. OMG! The entire scene has a schumcky horror feel to it.
To go back to what I said a while ago about how different we all perceive things, that basement scene is commonly regarded as one of the most tense scenes on the film. So it's interesting to see how differently you perceived it.

And on that same line, even though I acknowledge Spotlight was a good film, overall I didn't care much for it.



To go back to what I said a while ago about how different we all perceive things, that basement scene is commonly regarded as one of the most tense scenes on the film. So it's interesting to see how differently you perceived it.

And on that same line, even though I acknowledge Spotlight was a good film, overall I didn't care much for it.
Here's a link to my MoFo review of Spotlight.
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...34#post1556634



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Can completely feel for CR's preference to avoiding such films. I've seen some pretty incredible films here and, on occasion, through other channels, that I could have gone without but still remain thankful for seeing them. I can easily do without them, having rediscovered my love for life-affirming, happy endings from childhood instead of the more grisly, horrific human nature with cruel endings that I pursued in my young adult days.

I do admit a love for stylized violence in revenge and action films,(I don't see that changing) but, yeah, like CR, I avoid Slasher/Torture Horror and I can't abide any film with rape.
There are some films, a large percentage, from South Korea that are pretty intense but I still continue to watch them. It's a very small number compared to, from around the world that I just cringe having to experience. I think, for the few, I have both respect and willingness to revisit has to do with the poetic symmetry of Asian films. Not to claim that it is a solitary claim when it comes to the poetic in countless others throughout the world. For some reason, in Asian films, it resonates a little more for me, and thereby my appreciation dips a little higher than my cinematic respect.

I saw Zodiac about a month or two ago and, like @Takoma11 stated, showing the crime WAS a necessity in demonstrating the brutality and resulting fear that spread because of it. And thereby, why the pursuit of the eluding killer became such a lifelong pursuit for them.
I have a love and fascination for a variety of Detective films and TV Crime Series. So I did enjoy the investigative aspect, especially being a "True Crime". It didn't stick with me nor would I revisit it on my own accord but it was a worthwhile, interesting film. I'd probably rate it about
overall. The investigation aspect being the strongest advocate.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



i'm assuming i am too late to the party. When does the next one begin?



i'm assuming i am too late to the party. When does the next one begin?
Yeah, you're way too late! It's half over with. But we will be doing other movie watching activities like this real soon...so stick around!