ZODIAC: A New Film Babble Blog Favorite

“No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.”
- Roger Ebert 


I fully agree with Mr. Ebert. Many are grumbling about the length and density of the movie in question below but you won't find any grumbling here:


ZODIAC (Dir. David Fincher, 2007) 



A murderer clothed in darkness exterminating make-out parking or picnicking young couples, police and press continuously taunted by letters and cards sent by a serial killer at large, and an obsession with solving a perplexing nightmare of a mystery that derails the lives and careers of investigators and reporters and alienates the ones closest to them, these are all thriller genre elements that have arguably been done to death before, sure. 



But David Fincher’s sixth film ZODIAC, beautifully builds upon those frameworks with excruciating attention to detail and a sense of personal purpose that can be felt long after the film is over.

The film is based upon the infamous string of Northern Californian murders in the late '60s and early '70s by a man who identified himself as Zodiac and who was never caught.



Our protagonist and guide through this is Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhall) a ex-Eagle Scout turned San Fransisco Chronicle editorial cartoonist who while not assigned to the story immerses himself in the chilling codes and cryptic pronouncements that his paper and the authorities receive from the Zodiac. 



The Inspectors on the case David Toshi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) follow every possible lead, dissect every single angle, and interview every single suspect but still come up severely short on the crucial conclusive evidence needed. As time goes on with a long silence by the Zodiac – the trail grows cold leaving our heroes spiritually stumped and forever floored by the lack of closure. 




With few of the stylistic flashy touches of Fincher’s previous work (SE7EN, THE GAME, FIGHT CLUB, PANIC ROOM) ZODIAC is a meticulously mesmerizing masterpiece. Despite it’s over 2 and half hour running time not a scene is wasted and it’s admirable that '70s period piece cliches aren’t exploited, they're convincingly inhabited. 



Couldn’t be any better cast as joining the principles are Robert Downey Jr, Brian Cox, Chloë Sevigny, Phillip Baker Hall, Dermot Mulroney, and John Carroll Lynch, all playing the right notes with even incidental characters given sharp memorable turns by reliable bit-players (Donal Logue, Charles Fleisher, Ione Skye *, John Ennis, Adam Goldberg). 



Eerily effective and extremely absorbing with its “histories of ages past” and “unenlightened shadows cast” as Donovan's * "Hurdy Gurdy Man" (the song that book-ends the film) playfully but darkly suggests, ZODIAC deserves the oft quoted critic line this season never lives without: it’s truly the first great movie of the year. 



* Donovan has both a song and a daughter in this film. Good for him.




More later...

5 Cult Classics That Roger Ebert Didn't Get

Here at Film Babble Blog, film critic Roger Ebert is a well respected legend with his wealth of writings referred to often. 

Even when I’ve disagreed with Ebert, his well thought out and cleverly crafted reviews still make powerful points. However, there a number of times that I’ve felt that Mr. Ebert tragically missed the point so here are:

The Top 5 Cult Classics That Roger Ebert Didn't Get:

1. HAROLD AND MAUDE (Dir. Hal Ashby, 1971) Can this be right? Can Ebert truly be among the out-of-it straight laced critics that horribly misjudged this undeniably influential beyond words cult classic? Yep, he only rewards a movie that many friends, collegues, and family have considered one of the best movies ever with one and a half stars. For shame.

2. FIGHT CLUB (Dir. Peter Fincher, 1999) Two stars. Roger loves the first couple of acts but hates the concluding act. This is from a guy who wouldn't know the Pixies if they were stuck on the same elevator. Whatever Ebert, watch it again and tell me how what is set up in the first third would work better done another way and you and me will be square. 

3. BEETLEJUICE 

(Dir. Tim Burton, 1988) 



Again 2 stars. Where's the love for Tim Burton's maniacal masterpiece? It’s times like this that you just have to remember this is the guy who gave COP AND A HALF and HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE rave reviews.

4. HEATHERS (Dir. Michael Lehmann, 1989) Two and a half stars. I mean COME ON! This is a bonafide classic and Ebert's baffled review is painful to read. He writes "Is this a black comedy about murder or just a cynical morality play?" Jesus, Roger - if you have to ask... 

5. DON'T LOOK BACK 

(Dir. D.A. Pennebaker, 1967) 



Okay, so he gave this rock doc three stars, but don't let that fool you. He disses Bob Dylan to such a degree in his review that it's hard to take. I mean, read this sample: “What a jerk Bob Dylan was in 1965. What an immature, self-important, inflated, cruel, shallow little creature, lacking in empathy and contemptuous of anyone who was not himself or his lackey. Did we actually once take this twirp as our folk god?”

Can you believe that? Is Ebert, who wrote two separate reviews of this flick (first in '68 on the movie's original run and then again in '98 on its re-release) that out of touch? I thought it was pretty much accepted that Dylan was putting on those who were asking him square questions and having fun with the media juggernaut. I mean just a couple years before DON’T LOOK BACK was filmed (yes, I’m looking back) Newsweek wrongly accused him of plagiarizing his classic song “Blowing In The Wind,” and countless bandwagon jumpers had co-opted Bob's simple plaintive messages for their own cynical purposes. 

I can't imagine Dylan at that age and time reacting any other way, but to Ebert he's a self serving twirp. I can't quite process this judgement (or lack of). To Ebert's credit he nailed Bob's self indulgent MASKED AND ANONYMOUS monstrosity last year in a scathing review, but that doesn't make right his insulting remarks about one of the most influential film portraits of an artist at his prime in existence.

More later...