The Zodiac (from 2005)
Moderators: Bullitt, Aud8us, Michael Butterfield, johnny5
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
The Zodiac (from 2005)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371739/
did someone watch this movie? I DL it, interesting, but nothing special
did someone watch this movie? I DL it, interesting, but nothing special
- Lucifer's Angel

-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:39 am
- Location: Inside your closet. In your head.
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
I loved this movie. Better than the 2007 film, I say.
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
Lucifer's Angel wrote:I loved this movie. Better than the 2007 film, I say.
I don't agree with you.
1st: Names were changed, that made me angry
2nd: many of scenes were imagined, fake, like scene where Zodiac follows son of the inspector
but, it is solid movie to watch
- Curt Rowlett

-
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:37 pm
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
I have this on DVD. While the movie does not follow many of the historical facts of the Zodiac murders, it is actually a pretty good film. The recreations of the murders were, in many ways, better done and a lot spookier than the Fincher film Zodiac.
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
Zsearcher wrote:Wasn't Paul Stine a black woman in this movie?
Uh, no. . .
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
As strange as it may sound I like the fact that they diverged from the facts so heavily.
With the Fincher film they were trying to pass it off as totally factual (or as close as they tried to convince the viewer they could get). The changing of the names and adding fictional characters the 2005 film made it clear they were fictionalizing the majority of the aspects of a real case(based on real events as opposed to hey everyone, Art Allen did it!!).
For me this made it tolerable that it was inaccurate and I was able to just enjoy the film for what it was.
With the Fincher film they were trying to pass it off as totally factual (or as close as they tried to convince the viewer they could get). The changing of the names and adding fictional characters the 2005 film made it clear they were fictionalizing the majority of the aspects of a real case(based on real events as opposed to hey everyone, Art Allen did it!!).
For me this made it tolerable that it was inaccurate and I was able to just enjoy the film for what it was.
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
Fincher shoulda put in that Toschi's partner dropped out because Toschi (and him) were wasting time on a guy with *no* real evidence against him.
Of course u-no-hoo would stomp his feet and squawl.
Of course u-no-hoo would stomp his feet and squawl.
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
Brian D wrote:Zsearcher wrote:Wasn't Paul Stine a black woman in this movie?
Uh, no. . .
Oh yeah, that was The Limbic Region from '96.
Re: The Zodiac (from 2005)
fanatic wrote:Lucifer's Angel wrote:I loved this movie. Better than the 2007 film, I say.
I don't agree with you.
1st: Names were changed, that made me angry
2nd: many of scenes were imagined, fake, like scene where Zodiac follows son of the inspector
but, it is solid movie to watch
Even though you knew absolutely nothing was going to happen to the kid, that was the one scene that creeped me out the most! There were a lot of differences between the 2 flicks, as we all know, but the most obvious one is this: Z's presence is definitely felt throughout this movie, but in Fincher's flick, Z is a ghost who you get brief glimpses of who then vanishes like mist...
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


