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.
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.
Well, the film obviously had an effect on your life. But I'm not talking about the film, I'm specifically talking about the story; the case. Serial killers and unsolved cases don't excite me, especially in a film as bland and lifeless as this one.
Quote:
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.
I wasn't comparing Haneke and Fincher head-to-head. Go back and read what I posted. You could easily remove the Haneke part and it'd still make sense.
Quote:
Good Cinema doesn't start and end with Michael Haneke, or what you might term as "art cinema", though.
You got the wrong guy. I don't term anything. A film is a film.
Quote:
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.
Placing the audience into different character's identities? If I remember correctly, most of the film was from Gyllenhaal's point of view.
Quote:
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.
Yeah, I noticed the change in cinematography. So what? I'm all of a sudden suppossed to enjoy the film because Fincher paid great attention to detail?
Quote:
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?
