Zodiac (Widescreen Edition) | 
| Director: David Fincher
Actors: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr., Brian Cox
Studio: Paramount
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy Used: $0.89
as of 2/9/2010 23:55 EST details
You Save: $14.09 (94%)
New (48) Used (157) from $0.89
Seller: superpawn
Rating:  252 reviews
Sales Rank: 19796
Format: Subtitled, Color, Widescreen, NTSC
Languages: English (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Dubbed), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 157 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: D346014D
UPC: 097363460145
EAN: 0097363460145
ASIN: B000QUCNP4
Theatrical Release Date: March 2, 2007
Release Date: July 24, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
Closer in spirit to a police procedural than a gory serial-killer flick, David Fincher's Zodiac provides a sleek, armrest-gripping re-invention of the crime film. It surveys the investigation of the Zodiac killings that terrorized the San Francisco Bay area in the late -60-early -70s; Zodiac not only killed people, but cultivated a Jack the Ripper aura by sending icky letters to the newspapers and daring readers to solve coded messages. But the film's focus isn't on the killer. We follow the reporters and detectives whose lives are taken over by the case, notably an addictive crime writer (a sartorially splendid Robert Downey Jr.), an awkward editorial cartoonist (Jake Gyllenhaal), and a hard-working cop (Mark Ruffalo). Fincher and his brilliant cinematographer Harris Savides are deft at capturing the period feel of the city, without laying on the seventies kitsch, and James Vanderbilt's script doles out its big moments to major and minor characters alike. Fincher's confidence is infectious; the movie glides through its myriad details with such dexterity that even the blind alleys and red herrings seem essential. The well-chosen cast includes unexpected people popping up all over: Anthony Edwards as a lunch-bucket homicide cop; Charles Fleischer as a mysterious suspect; Elias Koteas and Donal Logue as small-town policemen whose districts are hit by Zodiac; Chloe Sevigny as Gyllenhaal's sweet-natured wife; Brian Cox as the media-friendly lawyer Melvin Belli, so famous he once appeared on Star Trek; and the mighty John Carroll Lynch, as a supremely creepy suspect. The film is based on non-fiction books by Robert Graysmith (he's portrayed by Gyllenhaal), although Fincher and co. did extensive research on their own. The result is a propulsive whodunit without (thus far) an ending, but the uncertainty makes the film even more intriguing. --Robert Horton Beyond Zodiac 
The Zodiac (2005) | 
Curse of the Zodiac (2007) | 
The Novel | Stills from Zodiac (click for larger image)
Product Description
Based on a true story, follows the obsessive investigations of detectives and reporters trying to discover the identity of a serial killer who uses the zodiac to determine his victims.
Genre: Feature Film-Drama
Rating: R
Release Date: 12-FEB-2008
Media Type: DVD
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 252
 It doesn't solve the case, but it comes close enough January 30, 2010
Annihilatrix1138
I really don't know where to begin with David Fincher's ZODIAC. It is, without a doubt, my favorite movie of all time. Not sure how this came to be or what it says about my character. I remember not even really caring so much about it the first time I saw it. I mean, it's a story about an unsolved murder: one that has been cold for over three decades. Not only that, but it's not even a "slasher film" if you get right down to it. More like a three hour true-crime film. And you (perhaps) never see the real killer's face in the film once, depending on how you view it.
Then why did this movie come to scare me so much? How did it succeed in frightening me more so than any other slasher/killer flick that I've ever seen? It's because, when you come to realize the circumstances surrounding the Zodiac murders, you'll find that this movie is more-or-less dead accurate to the smallest detail. (Me living very close to where these murders took place probably didn't help matters either!)
To summarize the plot, ZODIAC mostly centers around a San Francisco Chronicle political cartoonist, named Robert Graysmith. He comes to work as he usually does to discover that a killer has sent the Chronicle a written confession to a series of murders. In addition, this Zodiac goes out of his way to taunt the publication by stating that if a cipher he has included with the letter isn't printed in the newspaper, he will kill again. But this story is not strictly about the murderer's acts, but more about the surrounding investigation, and how it goes from bad to worse.
This movie is frightening when you discover the level of detail that has been painstakingly weaved into this movie (I've come to expect this with every David Fincher film I watch). Most of the murder scenes were filmed where the actual killings took place. And since there had been survivors, you get an accurate account of how these fatal encounters actually went down. Every behavioral tick that the Zodiac actually exhibited during the murders are reconstructed to the smallest detail. From what he said to how he acted to how he seemed almost like he was cheesing it up at times. This is one of the only movies I've seen where I felt like I was getting inside the mind of this killer.
There is a lot of drama here, and excellent performers by all of the actors. Both Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. expertly pull off their roles as men who become caught in a downward spiral into paranoia and near-insanity with every passing day that the Zodiac is never caught. Mark Ruffalo does an excellent job channeling Detective Dave Toschi, the real life SF homicide detective who became the inspiration for both DIRTY HARRY and BULLITT (a fact brought up in the film). Finally, John Carroll Lynch pulls off a very haunting, but very brief, performance as the man who would become the prime suspect in the case. At first, one might think that he's laying it on kind of weak, until you realize that this is actually how A.L.N. behaved during the interview. You see every flinch, every hint of nervousness, and every hesitation. That is brilliant acting, I must say.
In a nutshell, this is still a movie about a case that was never solved, but it came very close. The filmmakers never specifically say that THIS HERE was the man who should be blamed for these murders, but it lays out all the evidence for the viewer and asks US to make the decision for ourselves. In that sense, we become the detectives in this case.
I would encourage anyone with a passing interest in the investigation to watch the documentary included with this Director's Cut. You will see for yourself just how close this movie came to translating the real events, and you just might find yourself trying to piece together the puzzle with the main characters. This is a powerful and tragically underrated film (and probably David Fincher's best work to date) and carries with it a mass of question marks that might never be answered. But ZODIAC challenges us to try.
Do yourself a favor and pick up this Director's Cut of ZODIAC. I couldn't have imagined how an already extraordinary film could get even better, but this cut of the movie shows that miracles are possible.
I am not Avery.
Liked Original but Like This Even More January 29, 2010
carol irvin (United States)
Perhaps it is because I like stories about people who are obsessed. Then there's the fact that the person who is obsessed is one of my favorite younger actors, Jake Gyllenhall. He plays a cartoonist with a San Francisco newspaper who wants to find the serial killer, the Zodiac. Everyone else involved in it gives up as the Zodiac has a way of disappearing. Although the Zodiac's killings are especially gruesome, the movie is really not about the murders as it is about the obsession to uncover him. I think there is something especially galling about a serial murderer who just dies a regular death and is never brought to justice. The suspect the cartoonist focuses upon goes exactly down that road. Yet it is not at all certain that he was the Zodiac. All that's known is that he has been gone for a long, long time and is probably dead since his murders started forty years ago. The supporting cast is stellar too, Mark Ruffalo as the cop, Robert Downey Jr. as a reporter and host of others. It's in one and the same moment an absolutely chilling case yet also a world class frustrating case. Just about everyone who was professionally involved in this case became a victim to it as well. It just tore every person apart as it unravelled them instead of vice versa. There are two killings which you won't be able to forget. A couple at a lover's lane and another couple by themselves at a remote lake. I personally wrote off going to either after watching these scenes!
Atmospheric Crime Drama Worthy Of The Graysmith Books January 20, 2010
Robert I. Hedges
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
"Zodiac", by Robert Graysmith is one of the greatest nonfiction crime books ever written. Graysmith's agonizing reconstruction of the late 1960s and early 1970s Zodiac murders in California is astonishing in its own right, and this feature is worthy of his efforts. Though the case remains technically open in several California jurisdictions, the suspect thought most likely to have committed the murders, Arthur Leigh Allen, was never charged and died of a heart attack several years ago.
The film is brilliant in its representation of the era, with all the details from types of cars to airliner paint schemes nearly perfect in every way. It is brilliantly directed by David Fincher as a dark and menacing drama. "Zodiac" is extraordinarily creepy and nuanced while never resorting to gore (though some of the murders are graphic), with great lighting and details: I liked the oppressive rain throughout much of the film, for instance.
The acting is superb, with Jake Gyllenhaal playing the introverted Graysmith, an inspired performance by Robert Downey, Jr. as a drug and alcohol addicted reporter, Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards perfectly cast as homicide investigators, and the brilliant John Carroll Lynch ("Fargo") as Arthur Leigh Allen.
The only critique I have of the film is that at 157 minutes, it is rather long, and could have probably been trimmed by fifteen minutes quite easily. Without question, "Zodiac" is a research-intensive and detail-oriented picture, which embodies the best of true crime drama.
That's Graysmith. He's a cartoonist. He thinks he's going to solve the Zodiac January 13, 2010
C. CRADDOCK (Bakersfield)
Zodiac is an excellent movie that is successful on many levels. First, it tells a true-life crime story about a sensational serial murderer that galvanized the public, and was ultimately never solved. Second, it tells how the author of the book upon which the film was based was caught up in trying to solve the case while working as a cartoonist at The San Francisco Chronicle. Third, it tells the devastating effect this had on him and his family, and also on the police and reporters and their families. Fourth, it questions the role of media in cases like this--does the press coverage reward the killers with fame and notoriety? Does the press help or hinder the police? Fifth, it shows the need for different police jurisdictions to collaborate and share information.
To accomplish these various goals it had a tight ensemble cast led by Jake Gylenhaal as Robert Graysmith; with strong performances from Robert Downey Jr. as Paul Avery, a reprobate reporter; Mark Ruffalo as Dave Toschi, a police detective assigned to the case; Chloë Sevigny, as Graysmith's long suffering wife; Jimmi Simpson (Lyle the Intern on Letterman), as one of Zodiac's surviving victims; along with Anthony Edwards (ER), Dermot Mulroney (The Thing Called Love), James LeGros (Bad Girls), Candy Clark (American Graffiti), and John Carroll Lynch.
Special effects were used unobtrusively to enhance the film without distracting from the story, for instance, when they were unable to film on a particular street in San Francisco, they filmed on a soundstage, but dropped the actual street in as background, blending it flawlessly. Another establishing shot shows the Transamerica Pyramid being built with time-lapse photography. Though some special effects were used, they never got in the way.
The film had a very realistic look. Scenes in the Chronicle were exactly as I remembered the place. All the locations looked totally accurate. As the film was based on real events, there was meticulous attention to detail. Though the friendship between Paul Avery and Graysmith was fictionalized, there is a disclaimer that informs the viewer of that fact. From that I gathered that most of the other details, the ones that pertained to the Zodiac murders, were very accurate. This is so important in this sort of true crime story because a man is being accused of murder. The filmmakers are presenting a case, though largely circumstantial, that a man is guilty of multiple murders. The temptation for the filmmakers is to fabricate evidence, in the name of poetic license, or just to make a more compelling film. All the loose ends must be tied up before we can roll credits.
------------------------------
Robert Graysmith: Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Dave Toschi: Easy, Dirty Harry.
==============
Graysmith also wrote a book about the unsolved murder of Robert Crane. That book was also made into a movie--called Auto Focus, and directed by Paul Schrader. That book also presented a suspect that the author believed had done the crime, though in the case of Robert Crane there was finally a trial where the man Graysmith suspected was charged. After so many years, it was hard to find evidence or credible witnesses. He was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As for Zodiac, you'll just have to watch the film, as I am not about to spoil the film by revealing the ending.
The bottom line is Zodiac was a very good film that accomplished what it set out to do. It didn't dwell on the violence, but showed just enough to tell the story. It presented a very solid case for the identity of Zodiac, but didn't seem to manufacture evidence out of whole cloth. The story was just as much about what Graysmith, the reporters, and the police went through to keep their families together and not go insane as it was about the puzzle of solving a murder mystery. It also raised provocative questions about the role of media in reporting crimes. That it managed to do all this wisely and fairly and still be entertaining is quite an accomplishment.
-------------------
Robert Graysmith: I... I Need to know who he is. I... I need to stand there, I need to look him in the eye and I need to know that it's him.
=============
Donnie Darko (2001) Jake Gylenhaal was Donnie Darko
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (Widescreen Edition) (2004) Mark Ruffalo was Stan
Fargo (Special Edition) (1996) John Carroll Lynch was Norm Gunderson
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (Widescreen Special Edition) (1982) Anthony Edwards was Stoner Bud
A Scanner Darkly (2006) Robert Downey Jr. was James Barris
Party Monster (2003) Chloë Sevigny was Gitsie
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) Candy Clark was Mary-Lou
Itty Bitty Titty Committee (2007) Jimmi Simpson was Chris
Living in Oblivion (1995) James LeGros was Chad Palomino and Dermot Mulroney was Wolf
Where the Day Takes You (1992) Dermot Mulroney was King and James LeGros was Crasher
------------------------------
Officer George Bawart: Who was that?
Sgt. Jack Mulanax: That's Graysmith. He's a cartoonist. He thinks he's going to solve the Zodiac.
Officer George Bawart: Well, good for him.
=============
Another fine thriller; "Zodiac" October 6, 2009
The Northern Light (Europa, Close to Ultima Thule)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
First off; this is one loooooong film. Punching in at nearly three hours, it will not be something "everyone" will be bothered to watch (as if that would be a goal, but I'm just saying...). Interestingly enough the film centres around a dark subject, piquing the morbid interest most humans for some reason have; unsolved murders, ooooh! The inhabitants of the San Francisco Bay area were quite driven by fear of the so-called "Zodiac killer" in the late 60's and even stretching far into the 70's. They probably never caught him, something most people will be aware of, since this film is based on reality and word gets around about these cases. The killer makes a little fuzz about himself by writing strange and conflicted letters to newspapers, carrying out some kind of love-hate relationship with both the media and the police, which he constantly taunts. All the while, the slayings continue, innocent young people are found murdered for no apparent reason except being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
The film focuses on three people mainly; Gyllenhaal as a young bright cartoonist/artist working in a newspaper, Downey as the alcoholised journalist-colleague of his and finally Ruffalo as a relatively obsessed police detective. The acting is simply great, nothing to add there. These three variously work together or fight, all the time striving towards discovering the identity of the elusive "Zodiac". Quite rare in films of this calibre, the time span stretches over 20 years and beyond, as the years drag on and the murders stop. There are several suspects over the years, yet eventually very few are still working on the case, even though it officially remained open in various places, due to the wide area of crime.
The three mischlinge become obsessed with the subject; catching "the Zodiac", sacrificing both friendships and marriages in the process. I won't say how it ends, except that there is no clear "happy ending" here, just as there mostly isn't in real life. It is a veeery dark film, quite brutal and uncomfortable to watch at times. Yet at the same time, it is very well made, and you can see the changes in American society as it gradually declines after the mid-60's, due to the "Culture of Critique" and various other factors.
I guess this is what would be judged an "epic film" if I ever saw one. Highly recommended and 4,5 stars from me.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 252
|
|
|
