Zodiac review

 Number 640 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Fincher's mystery thriller Zodiac.

Telling the true story of the investigation into the infamous Zodiac killer, 'Zodiac' stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo. Jake Gyllenhaal stars as San Fransisco Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith and Downey Jr plays crime reporter Paul Avery. Both journalists become so obsessed with investigating the Zodiac killer that their lives quickly fall apart. Rounding out the trio is police inspector Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo.)

There's no denying the Zodiac killer has its place in the cultural zeitgeist. This film was released in 2007, a good thirty-three years after he supposedly stopped killing. Buzzfeed's video concerning Zodiac has over 15 million views. A few years ago there was even a running joke that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac killer. The Zodiac Killer is a cultural phenomenon and David Fincher capitalised on this brilliantly. Drawing inspiration from Robert Graysmith's true-crime books 'Zodiac' and 'Zodiac unmasked.' Fincher is a great thriller director, but he has a tendency to be gratuitous in his depiction of violence. Se7en is a top example of this. However, he shot Zodiac with a nice level of restraint. I thought we would be seeing Zodiac brutally torturing and killing his victims, but Fincher was far more subtle than this. 

Although what he had in subtlety, he lacked in pacing. I would argue that the film was unevenly paced. It is set between 1969 and 1991. And things move along very quickly. Too quickly, I think. Fincher would show one scene in a particular year and then move on before you have time to get your breath. You would see a scene from 1970 and then the next scene is in 1971. You don't have time to adjust to one scene before it has moved onto the next. This fast-paced nature did make things hard to follow at times. 

However, Fincher did well to always keep the suspense up. I'm not an expert on the Zodiac killer, but I know that he was never identified or caught. I was wondering how this might affect the ending. Would Fincher stay true to life or take creative license? He stayed true to life and left the identity of the Zodiac as ambiguous - although heavily implied to be the suspicious Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch,) but this could never be proved. I think if Fincher had offered a definitive solution would have been disrespectful to the real victims of the Zodiac killer. 

If anything, this film was about obsession. Both Graysmith and Avery become obsessed over finding the true identity of the killer and it costs them everything. Graysmith loses his family and Avery turns to drugs and alcohol before eventually losing his job. Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr were great in their parts. Downey Jr played Avery with the usual aloofness that he affects to all his roles, but Gyllenhaal was more understated as the quieter, socially awkward Graysmith. Although that isn't really unlike much of his other roles. But I particularly liked John Carroll Lynch who was heavily suspected of being the Zodiac killer. He played the role with an arrogance and a menace like he knew that he was untouchable. And he was. He died before he could be officially charged.

True, Fincher's pacing is uneven in places, but Zodiac is still a great thriller with genuine scares that don't lean into gory, as well as a tense plot that will keep you guessing. Will we ever find out the true identity of the Zodiac killer? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Natural Born Killers review

 Surprisingly this film isn't on the top 1000 films of all time although considering how controversial it is, perhaps this isn't so surprising. However, it is one of my girlfriend's favourite films so I thought I would give it a watch.

Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) are a couple deeply in love. Both having abusive childhoods, they become mass murderers who go on a lethal rampage killing anybody who stands in their way. All the while their actions are glorified by the media, most notably by journalist Wayne Gale (Robert Downey JR) Their rampage culminates in them being arrested and sent to a prison controlled by the maniacal warden Dwight Mckluskey ( Tommy Lee Jones)

Penned by Quentin Tarantino, although he has since disowned the film, and directed by Oliver Stone, NBK is what I lovingly refer to as 'True Romance' on acid.  It is a surreal, abstract and bizarre two-hour rollercoaster with more cuts than you can shake a fist at. And enough filters and visual effects to keep film majors analysing for years. But the film's unique visual style is its greatest strength with every colour scheme and visual composition peeling away another layer of Mickey and Mallory's psychotic mindset. For example, my girlfriend argues that the use of black and white at the beginning signifies how Mickey and Mallory see the world and everybody in it. Some people are good. Some are bad. There is no in-between.

Later, Mickey and Mallory become lost on in the desert while tripping on mushrooms. They encounter a Navajo chief Red Cloud who feeds and shelters them.  As their trip takes a bad turn and Mickey's dark past surfaces, he shoots Red Cloud. Upon fleeing, the couple find themselves surrounded in a field of rattlesnakes, unsure of which are real, and which are hallucinations. An apt metaphor for the paranoia they're feeling.

As I've said earlier, this film is highly controversial due to how its portrayal of ultra-violence has been blamed for numerous copycat killings, most notably, the Columbine High School Massacre which Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris code-named as NBK. But Oliver Stone has argued that those who say this have completely misunderstood the point of the film. Rather he argues the film is a satire of how the mass media glorify serial killers and mass murderers. And this is a theme that Stone absolutely nails.

NBK regularly references cult leader Charles Manson and serial killer Richard Ramirez who both received huge followings upon their incarcerations, even going so far as to marry their fans. Over the decades, Hollywood has displayed a perverse fascination with serial killers, making many films about Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac killer just to name a few. The TV series Criminal Minds draws inspiration from many real-life crime stories. More recently, Tarantino himself depicted Charles Manson and his murderous cult in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Netflix also produced a series about Ted Bundy starring Zach Effron. And let's not forget my favourite film, The Godfather which utterly and totally romanticises and glorifies the Mafia.

But as a society, we have always had this twisted interest in serial killers and mass murderers - seeing how they ick and how they become the way they are.  Nowhere is this more present than in the film's arguably greatest scene which explores Mallory's backstory and how she and Mickey meet. Framed as a campy, 70s sitcom complete with laugh track, we bear witness to Mallory's horrific homelife. Her father (Rodney Dangerfield) who wrote most of his own dialogue, sexually abuses her and is also physically abusive to his wife who allows him to abuse their daughter. Mickey delivers meat to Mallory's family and helps her to kill them. But the sit-com's laugh track is quite obviously a proxy for the audience-cum-armchair therapists who obsess over analysing every single detail of a serial killer's/mass murderer's childhood.

Robert Downey JR also shines as brash, vulgar and sleazy journalist Wayne Gale. This despicable man will do anything to get an interview with Mickey and Mallory as he knows the ratings will go through the roof - even if that means helping them escape from prison during a riot. The violence even excites him as he starts to gain a vicarious thrill through the violence he witnesses. Not to mention, the violence also fuels his massive ego. He starts getting off on all the monstrosities that he sees and even begins participating in it. He is very much a proxy of how the media can manipulate the actions of these depraved killers to turn them into some type of twisted symbol or god. 

I must admit, I'm a little puzzled as to why this film was omitted from the top 1000 films of all-time list as it is well-deserving of a place. Its memorable visual style and nuanced exploration of complicated themes makes it very compelling and entertaining to watch. But then again, equally controversial films such as a Clockwork Orange have made the list, so who knows why one film is okay and the other one isn't. Perhaps it's not the ultra-violence that bothered audiences but more how Stone argues that through our own glorification and fascination of real-life ultra-violence, we are indirectly responsible for its creation and continuation.