I've already explained why I don't like it multiple times Crapo. You simply stating reasons why you did like it doesn't make my reasons any less valid.

I think what "Crapo" ( ) was saying, and it went right over your head, is that you haven't given any reasons why you hate it.

Please tell us your reasons. Nobody is saying your reasons for hating the movie aren't valid, we just want to hear your reasons.

They're in the shoutbox.

Well that doesn't help out me or anyone else who signs on later. I don't want to scroll up through the shout box and hope it is still there. Oh well. Don't worry about it.

Okay, because the shoutbox is (rightfully) inadequate for such lengthy discussion, I'll continue it here...

You've repeated your initial response to it several times, yes, but you've not said anything new in response to the film since I've praised it.

This is what you wrote about Zodiac a while ago, and repeated just now in the Shout Box:

But you wrote that before I ever said any praise for the film; since then, that's all that you've responded with. You've not gone to any "yeah, but" counterpoint, you've just thrown the same thing back into my face. Repeating a point doesn't make it more valid, either.

What your saying is similar to me replying to that quote above with nothing but the words "MASTERPIECE! MASTERPIECE!"

Furhermore, on FCM you actually said to somebody "Please don't [see the film]". What's all that about?

But I don't want to sound like a bully, here. I can't stand it when people try to push other people's opinions into corners; I know you like watching films, and I'm trying (if you'll indulge me) to fetch out the best of you, to bring yourself, if you like, closer to knowing your own tastes, by means of seeing what works and what doesn't work, and why that is. Does that make me pretentious? Possibly, but take it as a compliment that I even care enough to post all of this.

Keep in mind that Zodiac is not only a serial killer film. It's a film about information, about technologies, about communication. A large portion of the film comprises the to-and-fro between the Zodiac and the newspaper to whom he's writing - and writing, initially, in code. The film is dialogue heavy, you're right, but it's in line with being visual-heavy, too - Fincher lays text over imagery and does all sorts of things with CGI to invoke an environment fuelled by the acquiring and publication of information. There's a scene in the film where two police departments in two different cities communicate via telephone, and one cop wants to fax another cop the code Zodiac has sent them, and guess what, the other cop says they don't have a fax machine yet. It's a film all to do with transitions in technology, I think, during the sixties and seventies, and how a society can live in fear because of a lack of technology - very self-reflexively, it's a film in turn made at a time, in real life, when we're obsessed with watching the news, acquiring information, keeping in touch with "reality". It's also based on a book by one of the characters in the film, and that book is published during the film (at one point he says, "I'm thinking of writing a book about all of this"), and the book's a bestseller in an airport, seen in an establishing shot where the protagonist is travelling across the country via plane - times change, there's no pussy-footing around on the phone anymore. It's very clever, I think; visually, it looks like a film shot in the seventies, only it's made with digital technology... because Cinema itself is a medium in transition right now, and the digitial capabilities are finally being explored further in recent years.

To be honest, the most important point I thought should be at least considered in your reply above, was this, what I wrote:



I realise you're prone to hyperbole, though: if you confessed to indifference due to subject matter, I could perhaps let you off.

Capo, you are so right about ZODIAC that no one else could possibly write a better analysis of the film.

No kidding. You've inspired me to go rent it tonight. Hopefully there is a copy left for me at Blockbuster.

TCM is playing this now. I don't know, Paul Newman as a bastard is still quite lovable. I've got a hunch what I think is the cause of the rift between his father and him. I'll have to see if I'm right.

My favorite line so far. "You still got that itch? Let me know if I can take care of it".

I knew Hud got drunk and drove and caused his brother's death. As soon as his father gave him a look when he was going out with his nephew, then gave him the keys, I figured that's what happened.

I knew a woman once called Spoiler Spoilersson!

So... what'd you think of it??

I thought it was very riveting. It was sad when they had to kill all the cattle. I kind of thought he and Patricia Neal would actually get together. I didn't suspect he'd try to rape her. I guess that's where the bastard part of him comes in.

It was kind of ironic. At the end all he had was his own bitterness, alone in an empty house.

Since when does a 44 year old movie need a spoiler.

A fitting ending.

Well, to be honest, since the fact that I haven't seen it. What's the cut-off time for spoilers?

Isn't that basically what I said in the first place?

I should stop watching movies just because IMDb database recommends them based on a certain movie I've liked.

I watched Notebook yesterday and this chick didn't like this flick. If it is cliché, don't make it predictable; and even if you do, try maintaining a little chemistry.

You mean the "Notebook" with James Garner???

I loved the story.

Well, James Garner and Gena Rowlands despite the memory issues had more chemistry than the young couple. The story might have been fabulous as a book, but this movie did not do it any justice.

Well, no. You said you hated it, that it had no relevance to anybody's life and chose not to admit praise for its aesthetic or technical value... in fact, forget "value", and replace it with innovation. You even said to a fellow film fan "Please don't [see this film]."

We've already had this discussion Capo. I'm repeating myself all over again.

I never said the film doesn't have any relevance to anyone's life, I'm speaking specifically about the case. Fincher did nothing to make it interesting to me. "Aesthetic and technical value and/or innovation." Fine. Maybe the film has technical and aesthetic value to you, but not me. Nothing grasped me. And technical or aesthetic innovation doesn't automatically translate into greatness. I mean, the whole fucking idea of liking a film is all based on your emotional reaction to it while you're watching it. The rest comes later.

I don't know why you keep posting, you're not going to convince me to change my mind about the film, and you're not going to convince me to watch it again. I didn't like it. At all. I hated it. Nothing's going to change that, so why bother trying to convince me otherwise?

You're coming off as extremely unlikeable right now.

I suppose I am trying to convince you of the film's greatness, yes, but only by means of exposing the severe inadequacies of your argument. And the inadequacies I speak of are the telling other film fans not to see it, and ignoring the film's originality, lovely imagery and other stuff besides its story.

I'd rather be unlikeable "right now" than all the time.

Oh well. I think it's a pity that you're overlooking that Fincher is using existing technologies in a way that have not been used before. Liking a film stems from the persistent enjoyment of it whilst watching, I agree. I'm just curious as to why you're not excited, whilst watching it, by the knowledge that Fincher is doing things which haven't been done before. It seems you took the premise and details of the case, magnified your indifference to them by the fact that it is in the end unsolved, and then switched off entirely, deciding to ignore technical, aesthetic and technological factors.

And to be fair and honest, DVC, you did say the case if not the film had no relevance to "[your] life or anybody else's". How you can account for others' tastes is beyond comprehension. And for the record, at the time, the case was relevant to the entire Californian region under terror, the killer himself, the investigators, the journalists covering it, and in turn the makers of the film, and then in turn again the viewers of the film. That's a lot of people that the case is relevant to, really.

So you didn't like its use of CGI, visual texture, cinematography, editing and the digital process involved in making it? If your answer is a simple NO, then fine... But I shall forever remain curious.

When I told Omar (right?) not to see it, I didn't actually mean it. I want to everybody to see every film ever made, ever. In fact, I'm glad I saw Zodiac. I was just emphasizing my hatred for the film by saying that.



No.

GRAY MATTERS
(First Viewing)

Gray and Sam are brother and sister and best friends, flatmates in New York City, where she creates ad campaigns and he's a surgery intern. Their social life is too insular, so they head to a dog park so Sam can, maybe, meet a woman. He does - Charlie - a zoologist new in the city; he likes her immediately, and the feeling seems mutual. As the three of them spend time together, what if Gray's feelings for Charlie aren't just sisterly? Not only might this explain her solitary life, but it could lead to real dilemmas - with Charlie (who's sweet, but a bit opaque) and with Sam. No advice comes from Gray's therapist, but a co-worker and a cab driver give theirs. Can Gray sort things out?

I hope writer/director Sue Kramer never gets another movie to work on again. This was very bad in terms of the script and some of the acting. The jokes were just bad and not hardly funny at all. Thomas Cavanagh seemed like he was downing cans of Red Bull in between every take. Whether or not his character was supposed to be so hyper or if it's just his nature, it definitely took away from the film. Bridget Moynahan on the other hand, where has she gone? I, ROBOT made a little noise but her best film I think was staring alongside Nicholas Cage in LORD OF WAR. Before and since then it's been nonexistent and the streak, unfortunately, seems to continue. And remember the chick from LICENSE TO DRIVE and AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME and FROM HELL? What was her name again? Oh yes, Heather Graham. My how the mighty have fallen! I just hope her check for this film was worth the pile of sh*t which was the end result of this project.

Or she could have meant the more recent movie, "The Notebook".

http://www.thenotebookmovie.com/

Same movie, Beth.

A-heh-heh-heh...

Yeah, that's what I read while quickly scrolling down the page. I apologize for my immaturity.

Actually, no, I don't. Immaturity rules. Anyone who disagrees is just fat. And not like, "Nukka, youse is PHAT," but like, "Fuck dude, you're fat."

THE NUMBER 23 1/2
(First Viewing)

Walter Sparrow becomes obsessed with a novel that he believes was written about him. As his obsession increases, more and more similarities seem to arise.
I had previously heard this movie was pretty bad but others said it was pretty good. I agree with the former. The story is rather ludicrous about a "killing" number. And in addition to that, there wasn't much of a shock value to the ending. I'm not saying every film has to have shock value to enhance it, but when it's a kind of a "who's-done-it" movie, sometype of twist is appreciated, rather than just saying 'meh' when the entire story is finally revealed. Finally, some of the CGI is shoty and as I've said again and again, CGI should only be used to enhance the film. I hate it when directors use it just to use it because it's available or they think it'll look cool. Instead, it takes away from the film and looks cheap.

Spiderman 3 *
I really really liked all the characters in the movie except Spiderman His character is totally annoying. I had seen the first two parts and really liked them for making the super hero human with all the weaknessnes and problems. But this time, it is not any of that. It is not even about the evil side taking over etc. He is a plain arrogant, indifferent jerk now that you cannot sympathise with. All the villians are infact likeable. Excellent performances overall. Plus Toby Maguire has put on a lot of weight overall, making him look bad. Nothing exceptional special effects wise. I am sure this is not the end of the series. Hopefully the next spidey sequel will be better.

I wasn't crazy about the ending.