Se7en vs Zodiac

This is a really tough call, and they are both my favorite Fincher films. I will have to see Zodiac again, but I might be leaning a little more towards that one.

I thought it was wrapped up as nicely as you could get for a unsolved mystery. Two pretty strong suspects were given given the spotlight. Hard not to think it was the obvious one who was given the most amount of attention. Who knows though in terms of the real investigation but the film was really pushing you in a way.

I agree to be honest, there was no confusion for me and I know many people seem convinced it was that guy gyllenhaal gives a long hard stare to at the end, if I remember rightly as it was a long time again I saw the film. I was more putting myself in the guys shoes I was responding to with that answer, however I knew it was a lazy one.
. seemed better than comparing two movies that are totally different from one another

__________________
Do you know what a roller pigeon is, Barney? They climb high and fast, then roll over and fall just as fast toward the earth. There are shallow rollers and deep rollers. You can’t breed two deep rollers, or their young will roll all the way down, hit, and die. Officer Starling is a deep roller, Barney. We should hope one of her parents was not.

Zodiac and it's not even close, much more complex and refined, Fincher really matured his style here. Se7en is good, great atmosphere and all, but it's a much more simplistic and straightfoward movie, it just doesn't have a lot to offer in comparison to Zodiac.

Also Brad Pitt acting in the end of Se7en was awful.

Se7en by a long shot

Se7en by far.

I find Zodiac a very well made movie, but it's not particularly rewatchable imo. Maybe it is for many, and if so, more power to you, but it never really wowed me enough to wanna rewatch it.

My opinion is that Zodiac is a very poor man's version of Memories of Murder, as I watched the latter a few weeks ago.

Se7en is far more iconic than Zodiac, and it's more iconic for a reason. There's a power about Se7en that just draws you in to viewing it over and over again.

I found all the performances in Zodiac to be solid, but none to me really stand out the way Freeman and Spacey command the screen in Se7en.

I'll never understand why when judging films, people always equate more complex with better. No, I'm not accusing you of doing that, I just mean in general.

Se7en was less complex than Zodiac, and yes, Fincher was more mature when he made Zodiac, but Zodiac simply lacks the compelling force that Se7en had.

There's a lot to said about Se7en, and I remember Yoda recently breaking it down far better than I could. There's so many ways Se7en subverted the genre, and really, it forever changed the way thrillers are made.

Zodiac didn't change or subvert anything.

I'm surprised you say Se7en forever changed the way thrillers are made. I've always thought of it as a pretty good thriller, but never thought of it as a forever gamechanger. Can you elaborate?

Last thing I'll say: Pitt's acting in Se7en wasn't that good, but it fit his role as the naïve, impulsive, knucklehead rookie - the perfect juxtaposition to Freeman's meticulous, seasoned veteran.

The role was originally supposed to go to Denzel, but maybe it's better off that Denzel turned it down. While Washington is a far better actor than Pitt, it's hard to picture Denzel pulling off a wet behind the ears, almost ditzy rookie cop.

Pitt was fitting for the role.

Oh really, I remember reading somewhere, that the role was suppose to go to Sylvester Stallone, who of course is older to be a rookie, unless that was a false rumor and he wasn't considered before Pitt?

Nope, it was supposed to be Washington. He turned down the role that went to Brad.

If Denzel takes the role, then you have an overlap of two guys (Washington, Freeman) who always play it cool, meticulous.

The role needed a young, and impulsive kid like Pitt - especially for the end.

https://globalnews.ca/news/1549460/t...20his%20crimes.

Oh okay. Washington played kind of an agressive rebelious hothead in Glory, so I could see it there sort of for this type of role.

There is a great visual representation of this in the film itself. At one point, Mills and Somerset are walking along a city sidewalk. Somerset is deftly weaving in and out of the crowd, while Mills keeps bumping into people as they walk along. A pretty cool visual queue as to the level of experience of each detective in navigating the obstacles presented by the city.

__________________

Yeah, but he was a lot younger in Glory, and not yet a star.

By the mid 90s Washington already a reputation as one of the "coolest" actors in Hollywood - a guy that never gets ruffled, and always has the answers.

It wouldn't have been as believable as Pitt playing young and impulsive.

I've rarely found a movie that absorbs my attention the way Zodiac does. Like Graysmith in the end,I just have to know who it is, I have to be there when they catch him.

Zodiac by a mile.

Se7en impressed me quite a lot when I first saw it, while I've been slowly warming up to Zodiac. If I were asked this question last year, I'd probably say Se7en, but currently, I'd say I like Zodiac a bit more. Although, both films are great, so I can't blame anyone for picking Se7en.

I'd say that a murder mystery that ends without conclusively identifying the murderer is the very definition of subversive, but that's just me.

Se7en is one of my favorite 90s movies

Great point. The dread and anxiety in that film was not knowing and watching what "not knowing" did to those who became obsessed with the answers. The danger was close, the pattern seemingly always just coming into view, but the puzzle was never complete. We also got the sense that getting the answer would cost far too much (a la 1988'sThe Vanishing), so it made sense to pull back from the mystery. This way lies madness and be careful looking into this abyss--this one is looking back.

What NCFOM did for thrillers, this film did for whodunnits.