Product Details
ASIN : B000XCZGVI
Customers who bought this goods also bought.
Customer Reviews
Slow (2007-09-03)  This was a good incite, but too slow to really be considered a 'great' film. Many of the conclusions whilst compelling still lend themselves to a lack of proof. However, that said I did enjoy the film, but it would have been so much better had it been 30 minutes shorter. Also, in the Region 1, the epilogue was far too small thus whatever information they were trying to impart was lost in a small haze.
Two decades in the life (2007-08-18)  I watched a film today, oh boy About a quiet man who wrote a book And though the book did rather well No one had time for laughs They saw the photographs Of people shot dead in their cars They didn't know at first the killer's name A group of letters soon appeared He said he'd killed them all Nobody was really sure if he was just leading them on I saw a film today, oh boy About a killer named the Zodiac And though the film was rather sad Well I just had to look Having missed the book It really was quite long (to the tune of "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles) First of all, this movie is more like a crime documentary, focusing mainly on the tedious and labor intensive background work that went into the investigation of the murders that took place in the San Francisco Bay area in the sixties. From the title, you already know that the killer is the infamous (and so far unidentified) Zodiac, and because the case is still unsolved, the ending is understandably vague. The next thing you should know is that it's a long movie that takes you step by step through the case from the shooting of Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau to the publication of Robert Graysmith's first book of the same name. It very effectively chronicles the personal and career upheavals of the main characters, especially the fixation of Graysmith (Sensitive guy Jake Gyllenhaal who's no stranger to obsessive roles), the dedication of Inspector David Toschi (a rumpled looking Mark Ruffalo) and the unpredictability of crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jnr. doing what he does best). At some points you can almost hear Graysmith's torment - "I wish I knew how to quit you Zodiac killer" - and at these moments you'll wish for Lilly Rush and the Cold Case team to come in and solve it once and for all. Recommended for people into true crime stories, but for obvious reasons you won't learn much more about Zodiac that you already know. Amanda Richards
Cerebral (2007-07-30)  The story is involving, without ever really going anywhere. There is little or no action.The violence seems imported from another film.The cast is largely toothless.But I still loved it. Ignore movie reviews.
A Self-Important TV True Crime Movie Gone Wild (2007-07-22) In the 70s and 80s there was a phenomenon on TV called the True Crime Story. They gained popularity after successful forays into the world of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, the Hillside Killings and Son Of Sam. They tended to be based on books put out by one of the protagonists and especially popular were those written by a journalist or bizarrely a lawyer who had accepted novelisation rights in lieu of a fee. Robin Graysmith does not fit into these categories he was a cartoonist but that didn't stop him styling himself an expert on the Zodiac case. Like many of the True Crime movies the writer of the source book becomes the hero of the story - whether he is or not - the producers of this film must be aware of the limitations of Graysmith's 'expertise' inasmuch as they are keen to let us know that the 'actual case files' were used in scripting the film. They are however stuck with Graysmith as the hero and it is the major failing of the movie that its central character should be so chronically unsympathetic. He is clearly despised by workmates and police alike and his obsessional increasingly manic behaviour does not endear him either to his family or the viewer. The premise of the movie is that the case damaged the lives of 4 people - 2 cops and 2 journalists - the problem starts with the story being told from the point of view of only one of the 4, one so self-obsessed that the characters of the other 3 are never developed and the story-teller has to spend much of his time in self-justification.There was clearly a mega-budget and a stellar cast that manages to include Clea Duval in a 90 second cameo and Ione Skye in an uncredited appearence. Top quality actors move in and out of the film with careless abandon, Chloe Sevigny, Brian Cox and John Carroll Lynch among those few able to make an impression with limited opportunities. Of the leads Anthony Edwards escapes with his reputation intact, and Mark Ruffalo copes with his episodic appearences with a one-note performance. Jake Gyllenhall is handed an impossible task, from the first the Graysmith character's involvement in the Zodiac story can only be explained by presenting him as a lurking oddball. The actor has to base his performance on the character presented in the book which is at best 1 dimensional. The unluckiest actor, however, is Robert Downey Jr. who has to play the real Crime reporter, Paul Avery, who's character has to undergo violent changes as he only appears in relation to his meetings with Graysmith. The confident able journalist at the beginning of the film has to descend into drugged-up idiocy in an entirely incoherent time frame.This type of film is always dishonest it claims an infallibility that it does not possess. The device of running the film to 2.75 hours should not be any indication of worth, it is rather a sign of unstructured story-telling. There is great film to me made on the story of the Zodiac killings, this however is not that film.
Worth seeing for anyone who appreciates an intelligent story well-told. (2007-07-10) I'm reading a lot of the same criticisms of this film so I will deal with each of the most common ones in turn:"The movie is too long"Not true. The movie is as long as it needs to be. There is a lot of information about this case - most of it has to be discarded. What is left has earned its place and needs to be there. I found the film gripping to the end."The killer doesn't figure highly enough. It is too dull and talky"This criticism usually comes from lovers of serial-killer thrillers. After seeing a few murders in the beginning of the film, they expect it to crack up a notch as it progresses. It is true that The Zodiac is largely absent from the 2nd half of the film, but that only allows the main plot (one character's obsession) to dominate which is where the film really starts to take shape. Obsession and its effects are the point of this film. It is not a Columbo-type good guy v bad guy puzzle-solver. The bad guy doesn't have to figure highly when there is so much conflict between the good guys. Police departments that don't talk to each other, journalists and police arguing with each other, a Zodiac obsessive getting no co-operation from people who want to forget the case. Throw in a couple of creepy suspects and a series of bizarre telephone calls and you have enough drama to keep the story always engaging."The film's conclusion is wrong"The film's conclusion is right, GIVEN ITS SOURCE MATERIAL. It may not be always factually accurate, nor does it need to be. It's a drama inspired by true events, not a documentary. The important thing is that Zodiac makes clear who provided its source material and the cirsumstances surrounding its production."Not Fincher's best"I think it's his best work to date. Of course if you come to this film expecting to see Seven 2, you will almost certainly be disappointed. It's more like a cross between All the Presidents Men and JFK. It lacks the bold and inventive camerawork and lighting of Seven and Fight Club and its hard to believe sometimes that it was made by the same director. On the other hand, it takes someone with the skills to make films such as these to have been capable of maturing into the director that made Zodiac. It deals with far more complex, weighty and difficult material than did Fincher's earlier movies and the sober and precise style he uses is entirely appropriate. "The violence in this film is too brutal. One scene in particular is too much"This is a valid criticism. I found the scene in question very shocking and the viewer should be aware of this. However it cannot be dismissed as unnececcessary because it has the desired effect of letting the audience know in no uncertain terms what this individual is capable of. This action resonates in later scenes making them more effective. On the whole this is not a violent film at all. "The acting is rubbish"Ok, I don't think anyone really said this (unless they are crazy). I just wanted to contrive the opportunity to say that the acting in this film is of a very high standard. Jake Gylenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, John Carroll Lynch - all excellent. And Robert Downey Junior's much needed humerous touch was worth the price of admission alone!Worth seeing for anyone who appreciates an intelligent story well-told.
Look for similar items by category
Related Link
Powered by Amazon Web Services + Amazon Associates.
|
![]](http://resource.hanamoku.com/img/hanamoku_uk/00bar_top_right.gif){kind=small}
![]](http://resource.hanamoku.com/img/hanamoku_uk/00bar_bottom_right.gif){kind=small}
Goods, Product Information![Zodiac [HD DVD] [2007] [US Import]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517KWDxqdnL._SL160_.jpg)
