Ohjaus:
David FincherKäsikirjoitus:
James VanderbiltKuvaus:
Harris SavidesSävellys:
David ShireNäyttelijät:
Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr., Brian Cox, John Carroll Lynch, Richmond Arquette, Chloë Sevigny, John Getz (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (3)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
As a serial killer terrifies the San Francisco Bay Area and taunts police with his ciphers and letters, investigators in four jurisdictions search for the murderer. The case will become an obsession for four men as their lives and careers are built and destroyed by the endless trail of clues. (jakelijan virallinen teksti)
Videot (3)
Arvostelut (14)
Parempaa tasoa edustava tavallinen rikosdraama, joka ei ole niin hyvä kuin miksi sitä kehutaan. Edes näyttelijänsuoritukset eivät tehneet vaikutusta, poikkeuksena ehkä Robert Downey Jr., mutta Gyllenhaalin suoritus oli liian laimea, hän on pystynyt parempaankin (esim. elokuvassa Todiste). Useamman onnistuneen D. Fincherin elokuvan jälkeen, jotka minulla on ollut kunnia nähdä, oli Zodiac osittain pettymys.
()
A captivating mosaic of facts that lacks the limiting features of the thriller genre and literally redeems the viewer in one of the most mysterious cases of forensic history. The only thing I would criticize is the long runtime; otherwise I liked everything essential – the stylization, music, acting, conception of the characters. Zodiac is simply a very unconventional look at an attractive substance, which most directors would turn into a thrilling idyll with an ending, where the killer gets it in the chest and it’s over. Fortunately, Fincher stuck to the facts and created a documentary, a civil and somewhat of a retro spectacle that I personally truly enjoyed. If you are expecting something attractive in the style of Seven, you are better off not going to the movie theatre.
()
It’s long, but not long-winded. There are conversations, but it’s not chatty. Fincher is a genius at letting actors stand in front of the camera for two and a half hours and talk about a single subject. However, without a single directorial excess, with only the stylish atmosphere of the 1960s - 1980s span and a very austere Zodiac rampage, the film keeps a steady pace throughout the runtime, and the viewer eventually gets the feeling that the biggest action consists of copying ciphered letters or writing Graysmith's book. Given his previous work, this is a 180° turn, and yet it proves all the more that Fincher's range of skills still offers (especially in the future) many pleasant surprises for the audience.
()
More than two and a half hours of spellbinding precision filmmaking, from the flawless evocation of the atmosphere of the 1960s and 70s, for which I have a soft spot, to the inventively staged Zodiac murders, where Fincher, with one exception, avoids explicit violence (and yet gave me chills like I hadn’t felt in a long time), to the pleasure of watching great actors. And if I were a manufacturer of "drinks for a slim line" with a professional deformity, I would gladly exclaim: “And zero clichés!!!” Undoubtedly the most entertaining conversational film in recent years and a treasure for all those whose first priority is the story and only then the flashy tinsel, so typical of recent films. And certainly a disappointment for those who like crime movies with everything presented on a golden platter like in Columbo. Acting-wise, I was very surprised by the great Mark Ruffalo, but everyone is rocked by Jake Gyllenhaal, whose enthusiastic, headstrong character, driven by a desire to "I need to know who he is", is one of the most likeable in recent years for me. And I think the best audience marker for this non-mainstream and boldly narrative film for our times is the fact that after it was over, I had a terrible urge to read Graysmith's book and learn more about the phenomenon called the Zodiac Killer. Not since at least Stone's JFK has there been a film with an investigative theme this good. Bravo, Mr Fincher!!! PS: The comparisons with Se7en are stupid! Fincher has made a distinctive work, and he didn't set out to create some silly clone.
()
While Fincher’s combination of hopelessness, cynicism and sadism has never been as well executed in every respect as it is in Zodiac, this is an engaging revelation of why there is no revelation. The scene of following a taxi with a god’s-eye view could be emblematic of the director’s reserved approach to the characters. He doesn’t let them live their own lives and prevents us from getting to know them better by constantly changing perspectives (the narrative stays with whoever has access to new information at the given time. Whether they find themselves in the field, at home or at a bar, whether at Christmas or on an ordinary day, they are dealing with the Zodiac killer. Paradoxically, however, if anything in the film undergoes obvious development, it is not the investigation, but the characters, who lose their nerve, enthusiasm and sense of detachment. Zodiac is most reminiscent of All the President’s Men, another factographic procedural thriller, not only in the characters’ obsession with uncovering the truth, but also in the style of the film itself. The architecture of the San Francisco Chronicle newsroom, the extraordinary depth of the extremely long shots (and the thought processes reflected in their completeness), the predominantly static camera and the exhausting collection and analysis of information are all reminiscent of Pakula’s film (and many other dramas and thrillers from the late 1960s and early 1970s), which ultimately convinces us that the system works, despite a similar course of development. Though Zodiac uses precise information about the time and place to promise us an essential revelation that will fundamentally influence the course of the investigation, this actually only leads us up another blind alley and is a manifestation of the director’s obsession with details (including making sure that what is played on the radio on a particular day and time is exactly what people would have actually heard on the radio at the time). At other times in Fincher’s neo-noir rendering, the sunny city of flower children becomes a dark labyrinth from which there is no way out and in which chaos reigns, which even murders that don’t fit any pattern correspond to. Instead of blue-green filters, the visually cohesive film is dominated by shades of yellow, the colour of obsession. Together with the interest in conveying information (see the prologue showing the journey of the letter), obsession is the leitmotif of the film. The importance of the media’s reporting of information and the necessity of going over an incredible amount of data again and again (in the conclusion, Graysmith essentially re-investigates what was investigated in the first two-thirds of the film) brings the faithful reconstruction of the forty-year-old investigation into the informationally oversaturated and media-controlled present. Zodiac is timeless also thanks to its stylistic reservedness. Fincher doesn’t try to be cool at any cost this time, as he uses complicated camera movements and CGI crutches only sparingly and focuses the most attention on the characters and what they communicate. In analysing the Zodiac mythology, the perfectionist director thus demonstrates devotion to the facts similar to that of his protagonists. Zodiac is an admirable and challenging film that is worthy of multiple viewings. 90%
()
(vähemmän)
(lisää)
Mainos