Capo, you hit the spot...and yes, it IS the best movie of 2007(so far).

If you had kept your old star rating system, what would you give it? 3? 4?

ZODIAC (2007) - ****1/2

Three, definitely.

I only listed ten or so films with four.

This is what I thought when I first viewed it. I am yet to watch a lot of movies this year. My impression of it today is positive, but not the very best. Mark Ruffalo rather than Gyllenhaal to me was the most memorable characater from this movie.

Yeah, not as good as HOLLYWOODLAND, right? ;D

ronnierocketAGO and Irish. Are you the same person? Split personalities maybe? Kind of like Tyler Durden and Edward Norton? Total opposites that have the same interests but conflict in opinion?

Just curious.

Zodiac is an epic pile of shit.

How am I suppossed to enjoy a film that spends so much time presenting us dialogue that hammers out details of some stupid un-solved case that has no affect on my life or anybody else's?

What a fucking bore.

And god do I hate films that end with words on the screen explaining what happened afterwards.

"Robert Gilson was sentenced to three years in prison. He is now hailed as a hero in Niggertown, New Jersey.

When he got out, he fell in love with, and married, Emily Johannson, whom he met at the mall.

They have been married for 15 years, and have three children."

"Mary Klingston continued to live in her suburban home with her husband Joe, and their five children. She later divorced Joe in August of 1997. She is currently a prostitute."

"As for Damon...he unfortunately died in a severe car accident after the production of this film.

He was 36."

*Cue music, roll credits.


Ugh, that type of ending gives me the worst kind of diarrhea. So lazy and stupid.

No.
NO.
NO.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

First off, if I found out that I shared the same body with a 30-year old guy who likes Michael Bay, I would labotimize myself with a powerdrill.

Second, I would hear everyday of how Shelton Benjamin was "screwed" by the WWE. Oh and that Undertaker is an old SHIT who won't stay buried.

Third, I wouldn't be able to stand someone that acts like the realization of the worst Yankees fan stereotype, and then demands easiness and tolerance when fortunes don't go his way.

Fourth, Irish is the sort of person thats like the slow-witted child of the BB.Net family: Give him an old sock, and they'll be entertained by it. Give him explosions, and he excuses whatever nonsense the movie would have.

Me? Power Drill.

If Irish and me are the same person(despite a 10 year age gap), then ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, blibblebabble, I would seek a divorce immediately.

Compared to what? A fictional retarded serial killer crapper that doesn't matter to any of us because it SUCKS?

The epilogue text serves a purpose. ZODIAC isn't a horror or serial killer or even a thriller(but it does contain thrills)...its a police procedural movie and the movie's nearly-complementive 160 minute digestation of everything Zodiac makes it absolutely fascinating.

Besides, the movie dramatically tries to resolve itself with a satisfying narrative ending....yet Fincher still reminds the audience that the film's choosen "Zodiac" may not be the man himself.

The best docu-dramas are those that are absolutely fun when you learn and experience at the same time.

Plus, it was riveting despite the cramming of details and information. That accomplishment alone proves that Fincher is a master.

DITO! Please ease up on the insults Blibble. In the infamous words of Don Vito Corleone, "what have I done to be treated so disrespectfully?"

ROFFLES.

I forgot one thing about Zodiac; it is extremely bland and uninteresting visually. It seemed it like it was trying to be wide open and mysterious like a Haneke film, but it ended up feeling overpolished and just average. But a lot of our perceptions about a film's aesthetic is affected by what's actually happening in the film too.

Just a bad film overall. Fight Club was so much better. And I'd like to see Se7en too.

FANTASTIC FOUR 1/2
(Nth Viewing)

When an experimental space voyage goes awry, four people are changed by cosmic rays. Reed Richards, inventor and leader of the group gains the ability to stretch his body, and takes the name, Mr. Fantastic. His girlfriend, Sue Storm, gains the ability to turn invisible and create force fields, calling herself the Invisible Woman. Her younger brother Johnny Storm gains the ability to control fire, including covering his own body with flame, becoming the Human Torch. Pilot Ben Grimm is turned into a super-strong rock creature calling himself Thing. Together, they use their unique powers to explore the strange aspects of the world, and to foil the evil plans of Doctor Doom.

I have enjoyed pretty much every comic book movie I've seen since 2000 with the exception of THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN and HELLBOY. A good 100-minute comic book, action, superhero film that I don't need to deliever social commentary to enjoy. Sure it's not as good as the X-MEN or SPIDER-MAN franchises, but I think most of the Marvel properties (this, GHOST RIDER, HULK, DAREDEVIL, etc.) are judged too harshly. Was this movie fantastic? No. Was it an enjoyable superhero film? Yes. The cast was great and I look forward to FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER.

I agree with you that FIGHT CLUB and SE7EN were better films than ZODIAC. However, I didn't find it to be horrible. I'd place it 3rd on my list for the best films of 2007 thus far (it's been pretty lackluster to me)

1) GRINDHOUSE
2) 300
3) ZODIAC

I think it is a kids movie. I find it a little silly (it is not a negative criticism) and un-entertaining.

Just because FIGHT CLUB and SE7EN are better films(hell, I have ZODIAC and FIGHT CLUB share the same rating) doesn't make ZODIAC any less brilliant.

Its logic like this why I hate the NEW YORK TIMES. If a new movie from a proclaimed master isn't as good as his best works, it sucks. What retarded bullshit.



I've got to agree with svsg here, but I'm more harsh.

Seriously, its funny how Irish never answered me one vital question....why is Doctor Doom(or as I call him, DDINO(Doctor Doom In Name Only) a bad guy in the movie?

He can't answer because he is a villain...simply because the script says so.

Thank God I'm not a TOOL or MARK like some people are.

Hey, Blibble wasn't insulting you Irish. I think he thought that somehow me and you seemed so schzephrenic with each other, yet similar in some bastard ways.....its funny, but if I really DID share a body with you, I would save the future by castrating ourself the body or powerdrill to the skull, or whatever comes first.

BUG (2006) - ****

Irish will hate this movie. I'm sure talking about it to his Blockbuster co-workers, he says how boring it is, how not scary it is, and how nothing interesting happens. Then he sees me typing all of this, and he then writes of how he likes the movie, or how smart critics dug the movie.

Better yet, if Taratino and the media go ape for it, he'll follow suite.

But what makes BUG absolutely fascinating is that William Friedkin makes maybe his best fucking movie since TO LIVE & DIE IN LA two decades ago.

No, scratch that. Its fascinating because while the ad campaign make BUG seem like a horror infestation-insect thriller, its really in fact a love story.....albeit one where one crazy schzephrenic falls for a woman who seems to be a undiagnosed nutjob herself...and both fend off an invasion of deadly insects.

The first 2/3rds of the movie, you play along with the possibility that Michael Shannon is a victim of a conspiracy, but in the last 1/3rd, you realize...he's just fucking crazy. By this third act, you're watching madness enrapture two lonely people, and for the most crazy happy/downer ending of 2007 that I've witnessed.

To think that BUG started out as a written play, and Friedkin absolutely captures this intimacy of the stage with the screen, no surprise since he's been busy helming Opera productions for the last few years.

You all want a good Hollywood horror movie that is smart and worth-watching instead of more pretty people who can't act who get slashed up or another shitty remake? Go see BUG.

But how did Ashley look??

It is silly in certain parts but it probably has the most humor out of all the superhero movies in the past couple of years. The sequel looks a lot better though!

I didn't say ZODIAC wasn't any less brilliant. I simply said I preferred FIGHT CLUB and SE7EVN rather than this movie and it was my 3rd favorite of 2007. Where did I say it was any less brilliant?

Hey fathersson, ease up on the loving. As his signature, you've always got me in mind. For you're information, I've never seen BUG and I no longer work at Blockbuster. Come back with some new material you broken record

KNOCKED UP looks hysterical.

You've said that twice now, almost word for word. I don't get the "no effect on anybody else's life" part, because I've just given a rave review for it.

I don't get comparisons to Haneke, either, since I don't really see a relevant point of discussion between the two - and since you've only seen all of three films by him, I can't see how you would, either. The only way I see a similarity - and it's a vague one - is how both directors have an obvious great deal of pre-planned choreography for their scenes; Haneke more so, though, since his films are decidedly minimalist in terms of editing, and Fincher only for certain set-pieces.

Good Cinema doesn't start and end with Michael Haneke, or what you might term as "art cinema", though.

I'm (half) interested as to how you might counter my points of praise in my review. How Zodiac is a lesson in subjective verisimilitude - constantly shifting focus and placing the audience into a different character's identity.

I see also a lot of visual worth in Zodiac. Didn't you notice the subtle change in cinematography as we moved through the decades. Compare the colour and lighting in some of the early scenes to the late scenes. If that isn't attention to period and detail and/or visual authenticity, I don't know what is.

And I've not even hit upon his use of CGI yet.

As for the text epilogue, it wasn't so much lazy as economic. The narrative had already served its purpose. How do you wrap up a series of events which are still continuing in real life in mere imagery and dialogue?

Some text epilogues are worthless, or contradictory, like the ones at the end of Hotel Rwanda and Blood Diamond, because they're really pretentious in how they pull the film into sudden educational mode, contrary to the action conventions of the film.

But Zodiac's was similar to the one Melville uses at the end of Army in Shadows. Very efficient.

It's not bad but not as funny as THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN

You saw it already? Where's the review?

Yeah I saw it a couple of weeks ago at an advanced screening (my first BTW).

KNOCKED UP 1/2
(First Viewing)

Slobby Ben and up and coming career girl Alison meet at a bar, and end up having a one night stand. Eight weeks later, Ben is shocked when Alison meets him and reveals that she is pregnant. Despite having little in common, the two decide that they have to at least try to make some kind of relationship work for the baby's sake.

WOO HOO, I officially went to my first advanced screening! I was pissed because last year I had the opportunity to see THE DEPARTED early too but I had to work so unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend. However, today I made plans to be off of work by 5 so I could wait in line to get a seat.

As for the movie, it was kind of a let down. It wasn't as funny as THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN although a lot of the cast members were kept in tact for this film. Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogen worked well together as the main stars of the film and I enjoyed Jonah Hill and Jason Segel's work the most. Even though the film was rated R, some of the humor seemed to be a bit childish. I don't know how to explain it really since different things make different people laugh but I felt liked some of the jokes were made for a PG-13 audience. Overall, it wasn't a bad movie but not as good as I was hoping coming from Judd Apatow coming off the heels of THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN.

Judd in BUG looks like a sexually-hungry white trash coke-head...and sexy at it.

I don't know how you call that attention to period. I am not saying that there wasn't any, but I couldn't find any and you haven't pointed out any. In my review I wrote about the yellow filter. I actually thought it was cool, but yellow filter alone won't make it different period. It is like using sepia/BW or some coarse grain film. I never thought about this point till now. How do films get away with that? Isn't it just a clever gimmick? Note that I do usually fall for that gimmick and appreciate it, but maybe I will start paying attention to this aspect from now on. I don't know if there was really any change in the way American towns looked in that particular span of twenty years, but I would speculate that they did. Ddi the movie bring out that difference? I can't recall. I noticed that he did stretch the film very long just to give us the feeling that a lot of time has passed by and nothing happened. But visual setting? I am not so convinced. Please educate me.