So in the first murder, a black muscle car pulls up, shuts off the lights and frightens the teenagers; it pulls away, and a *red* muscle car comes peeling up and shoots them.
We see the black muscle car again (not the red one) when it picks up the woman and her child, confirming its link to the Zodiac.
At the end of the film, we see the Vaughn movie theatre guy pick up Graysmith. On top of that, he reveals that it's *his* handwriting that matches the Zodiac's, not "Rick Marshall's", who he says he's no longer speaking with: he also claims he's living alone, but when he takes Graysmith down to the basement, someone starts walking around upstairs.
Completely unconnected to these facts is the persuasive case against Arthur Leigh Allen, which the film clearly works to sell us on.
My theory: the Zodiac killer was two people. Rick Marshall and the Vaughn guy.
Arthur Leigh Allen was simply a deeply deranged pedo psycopath red herring.
All of this is only in the context of the film though, not irl. This is what Fincher seems to be presenting.
I mean that film is giving us a red herring with Arthur Leigh Allen and the actual killer (one of the two) was in the basement.
the movie has different actors portraying the killer at different times, it's supposed to be unclear
I did catch that, but it's sort of beside the point. Obviously they aren't going to have the same actor play the killer and make it that blatant. But the film does hint at who we should think it is, with the opening scene emphasizing that there are two killers working together.
The best serial killer movie of all time and one of the best movies of the 21st century. No shit Fincher peaked w/ it but he still did a lot of great stuff afterwards
it's not that good
characters feel underwritten
jake gyllenhaal's character doesn't age REMOTELY over the what, 15 year span of the movie? kind of ruins my immersion
mark ruffalo didn't really turn in a good performance until spotlight, he's mid here. I just don't like his character lol
the film has its red herrings but the whole thing feels so stylized it's hard to take those scenes very seriously AKA feel impact from them
I definitely got the creeps from the basement scene but it's as if the whole thing has an unreliable narrator aspect. those scenes lacked subtlety
these are maybe nitpicks but honestly the whole thing felt like a bit of a slog towards the end.
I have to assume folks impressed by it are just impressed by fincher's style, which is fine.
The best serial killer movie of all time and one of the best movies of the 21st century. No shit Fincher peaked w/ it but he still did a lot of great stuff afterwards
If you have to ask why Zodiac is the opposite of "mid", you'll never know. Dimwits either have to educate themselves or fall by the wayside, you give yourself the remedial lessons you need
[...]
it's not that good
characters feel underwritten
jake gyllenhaal's character doesn't age REMOTELY over the what, 15 year span of the movie? kind of ruins my immersion
mark ruffalo didn't really turn in a good performance until spotlight, he's mid here. I just don't like his character lol
the film has its red herrings but the whole thing feels so stylized it's hard to take those scenes very seriously AKA feel impact from them
I definitely got the creeps from the basement scene but it's as if the whole thing has an unreliable narrator aspect. those scenes lacked subtlety
these are maybe nitpicks but honestly the whole thing felt like a bit of a slog towards the end.
I have to assume folks impressed by it are just impressed by fincher's style, which is fine.
Autistic nitpicking. The movie uses tropes that are adequate to the genre and does so inventively and without spoon-feeding anything or clinging to average joe's expectations of a clearcut answer-- that's not its narrative purpose and you have to make an effort and figure it out
>The movie uses tropes that are adequate to the genre
wow sure picked some A+ descriptors to sell your point! >without spoon-feeding anything or clinging to average joe's expectations of a clearcut answer-- that's not its narrative purpose and you have to make an effort and figure it out
Wow okay so you actually didn't understand my point at all. It's like you didn't even read the post.
It signals HEAVILY to clearcut answers within those scenes. It makes things all so obvious. It IS spoon-feeding you a narrative. It then goes on to spoon-feed you a counter-narrative. This is repetitive, monotonous... dull...
We're given conflicting answers wherein each are so conclusive they could not realistically exist in the same world. They feel /unreliable/. But not in any way that fools you; they are BLUNTLY unreliable.
I sleep. It's a boring fricking movie man
3 months ago
Anonymous
>wow sure picked some A+ descriptors to sell your point!
Concession accepted. >It signals HEAVILY to clearcut answers within those scenes.
Filtered. Rewatch the movie and again: its purpose is NOT finding out who the Zodiac was. It was a movie about evil and the investigators themselves.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>its purpose is NOT finding out who the Zodiac was
the case is unsolved IRL anon
Everyone but you knows the Zodiac is mid. Check RT. You probably only like it as much as you do because you have repressed serial killer fantasies
3 months ago
Anonymous
Weak, try harder
3 months ago
Anonymous
77% audience score. That's a C
3 months ago
Anonymous
Great movies always filter a significant amount of plebs, particularly movies were the middlebrow have the expectation of a simpleton solution to the mystery
Furthermore, may I present to you: Picrel
Gone Girl is a highly accessible movie. And unlike the social network it's not about a specific point and place in time. Gone girl has elements of mystery and horror; it tapped into the zeitgeist with a "True Crime" styling; it is all in all a well crafted drama. A darkly romantic feature fitting of our time.
finch was cooking
as someone who had a short relationship with a girl with bpd or whatever slice of evil inflicted her this movie scared the shit out of me, the actress got the eyes and that "look" spot on.
I liked it and some others. But I am NEVER watching another Fincher after Le Killer. Not even old ones.
He has offended me and he can go frick himself.
I love Social Network and even like most of his movies including The Killer, but this is undoubtedly true. Zodiac is one of the finest films of the millennium and he will likely never meet that standard again
It's the visual elements and the plot. It opens with a beautifully shot murder scene, one of the finest murder scenes ever put to film. Then the actual characters get involved and you follow each in their reaction to these initial murders. You see the story from an emotional then an analytical side then an elegaic side, and there are great horror and noir elements throughout that period. It's a movie about not being able to understand the scariest aspects of life and being unable to do anything about them
not him but i love /slow burn/ and wish there were more films like this. even just the time period is comfy because it cant be solved by going "lol just pull up the cctv and get his cell phone records lmao".
>not him but i love /slow burn/ and wish there were more films like this.
god fricking dammit dude it's not a slow burn because it never IGNITES
3 months ago
Anonymous
>awkward nerdy young guy out banging hot 20 something married woman from next door
i don't think anything would please you
3 months ago
Anonymous
>i don't think anything would please you
Did they have a sex scene? Or just a dinner scene and then she gets involved and over time loses interest and leaves? A far cry from the raunchy scene you imagined happened
also all of that takes place over like an hour and a half and also jake's character is so bland and nondescript
So in the first murder, a black muscle car pulls up, shuts off the lights and frightens the teenagers; it pulls away, and a *red* muscle car comes peeling up and shoots them.
We see the black muscle car again (not the red one) when it picks up the woman and her child, confirming its link to the Zodiac.
At the end of the film, we see the Vaughn movie theatre guy pick up Graysmith. On top of that, he reveals that it's *his* handwriting that matches the Zodiac's, not "Rick Marshall's", who he says he's no longer speaking with: he also claims he's living alone, but when he takes Graysmith down to the basement, someone starts walking around upstairs.
Completely unconnected to these facts is the persuasive case against Arthur Leigh Allen, which the film clearly works to sell us on.
My theory: the Zodiac killer was two people. Rick Marshall and the Vaughn guy.
Arthur Leigh Allen was simply a deeply deranged pedo psycopath red herring.
All of this is only in the context of the film though, not irl. This is what Fincher seems to be presenting.
>which the film clearly works to sell us on.
Then what was the point of the whole basemen scene?
I mean that film is giving us a red herring with Arthur Leigh Allen and the actual killer (one of the two) was in the basement.
I did catch that, but it's sort of beside the point. Obviously they aren't going to have the same actor play the killer and make it that blatant. But the film does hint at who we should think it is, with the opening scene emphasizing that there are two killers working together.
the movie has different actors portraying the killer at different times, it's supposed to be unclear
intradesting
>Fincher peaked here
Agreed. Pure fricking KINO
it's not that good
characters feel underwritten
jake gyllenhaal's character doesn't age REMOTELY over the what, 15 year span of the movie? kind of ruins my immersion
mark ruffalo didn't really turn in a good performance until spotlight, he's mid here. I just don't like his character lol
the film has its red herrings but the whole thing feels so stylized it's hard to take those scenes very seriously AKA feel impact from them
I definitely got the creeps from the basement scene but it's as if the whole thing has an unreliable narrator aspect. those scenes lacked subtlety
these are maybe nitpicks but honestly the whole thing felt like a bit of a slog towards the end.
I have to assume folks impressed by it are just impressed by fincher's style, which is fine.
Why does the cop who finds the dead girl and shot and bleeding to death boy act like he doesn't give a shit?
I've seen cops hand out jaywalking tickets with more urgency.
Most of his movies are great
There never was a zodiac killer
The best serial killer movie of all time and one of the best movies of the 21st century. No shit Fincher peaked w/ it but he still did a lot of great stuff afterwards
Nah it's mid
You're mid. Improve yourself anon
Improve your argument
If you have to ask why Zodiac is the opposite of "mid", you'll never know. Dimwits either have to educate themselves or fall by the wayside, you give yourself the remedial lessons you need
Autistic nitpicking. The movie uses tropes that are adequate to the genre and does so inventively and without spoon-feeding anything or clinging to average joe's expectations of a clearcut answer-- that's not its narrative purpose and you have to make an effort and figure it out
>The movie uses tropes that are adequate to the genre
wow sure picked some A+ descriptors to sell your point!
>without spoon-feeding anything or clinging to average joe's expectations of a clearcut answer-- that's not its narrative purpose and you have to make an effort and figure it out
Wow okay so you actually didn't understand my point at all. It's like you didn't even read the post.
It signals HEAVILY to clearcut answers within those scenes. It makes things all so obvious. It IS spoon-feeding you a narrative. It then goes on to spoon-feed you a counter-narrative. This is repetitive, monotonous... dull...
We're given conflicting answers wherein each are so conclusive they could not realistically exist in the same world. They feel /unreliable/. But not in any way that fools you; they are BLUNTLY unreliable.
I sleep. It's a boring fricking movie man
>wow sure picked some A+ descriptors to sell your point!
Concession accepted.
>It signals HEAVILY to clearcut answers within those scenes.
Filtered. Rewatch the movie and again: its purpose is NOT finding out who the Zodiac was. It was a movie about evil and the investigators themselves.
>its purpose is NOT finding out who the Zodiac was
the case is unsolved IRL anon
Everyone but you knows the Zodiac is mid. Check RT. You probably only like it as much as you do because you have repressed serial killer fantasies
Weak, try harder
77% audience score. That's a C
Great movies always filter a significant amount of plebs, particularly movies were the middlebrow have the expectation of a simpleton solution to the mystery
Furthermore, may I present to you: Picrel
Gone Girl is a highly accessible movie. And unlike the social network it's not about a specific point and place in time. Gone girl has elements of mystery and horror; it tapped into the zeitgeist with a "True Crime" styling; it is all in all a well crafted drama. A darkly romantic feature fitting of our time.
finch was cooking
as someone who had a short relationship with a girl with bpd or whatever slice of evil inflicted her this movie scared the shit out of me, the actress got the eyes and that "look" spot on.
>the actress got the eyes and that "look" spot on.
It's really super. She's appropriately hot, as well.
i'm sure it's not meant to be viewed in this way, but it's also the only realistic depiction of female on male domestic abuse i've ever seen in media.
I liked it and some others. But I am NEVER watching another Fincher after Le Killer. Not even old ones.
He has offended me and he can go frick himself.
Aw cmon man the killer wasn't so bad.
Hey are any of you guys hungry? Some McDonalds breakfast would sure hit the spot.
zodiac killer was made up by cia
he never existed.
I love Social Network and even like most of his movies including The Killer, but this is undoubtedly true. Zodiac is one of the finest films of the millennium and he will likely never meet that standard again
>Zodiac is one of the finest films of the millennium
I don't get it. Why?
It's the visual elements and the plot. It opens with a beautifully shot murder scene, one of the finest murder scenes ever put to film. Then the actual characters get involved and you follow each in their reaction to these initial murders. You see the story from an emotional then an analytical side then an elegaic side, and there are great horror and noir elements throughout that period. It's a movie about not being able to understand the scariest aspects of life and being unable to do anything about them
eh. alright
it's got some cool scenes, I won't deny that
fincher just struggles with pacing in a lot of his film, to my taste
not him but i love /slow burn/ and wish there were more films like this. even just the time period is comfy because it cant be solved by going "lol just pull up the cctv and get his cell phone records lmao".
>not him but i love /slow burn/ and wish there were more films like this.
god fricking dammit dude it's not a slow burn because it never IGNITES
>awkward nerdy young guy out banging hot 20 something married woman from next door
i don't think anything would please you
>i don't think anything would please you
Did they have a sex scene? Or just a dinner scene and then she gets involved and over time loses interest and leaves? A far cry from the raunchy scene you imagined happened
also all of that takes place over like an hour and a half and also jake's character is so bland and nondescript