MovieChat Forums > Zodiac (2007) Discussion > Is it too wrong to be any good?

Is it too wrong to be any good?

posted 6 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
27 replies | jump to latest

So the movie is very well crafted and you get totally hooked on it.
Great directing, acting, writing etc.
But I think, since it's based on a true story, that takes it as long as you believe this stuff is real. Unfortunately, if you do some research, you'll find out that most of this stuff is quite discredited, has been already investigated, and has lead to false results.
The people this movie indicates as the probable zodiac are, in reality, innocent.
So is this movie too wrong to be actually any good?

Before people reply that it's a movie, that even true story are not always all true: the wrong I'm talking about is, unfortunately, what makes this movie awesome (the investigations and revealing what's been discovered in them and what could have really happened, etc.) Apollo 13, great film, great details etc: it would be utter crap if you found out that in reality they had minor problems and never risked their life. So, in this detective story, great film, great details etc, how can it not be utter crap since we know for a fact that in reality these investigations were totally discredited?

[–] Martoto (5024) 6 years ago

The people portrayed in the movie believe their suspect is guilty. And the movie is about their ultimately failed quest. It's not about the Zodiac or solving the case per se.

And it is still a masterpiece of filmmaking.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Yes I agree, but the movie always gives us the idea that they are on the right path, and never really stops to say "they are chasing a chimera - these are two deluded men: they believe their suspect is guilty but we shouldn't believe them".
Even when Gyllenhaall meets Allen in the basement looking like a total creep, who says something like "that is my signature", instead of stopping for a moment to say "this means that Gyllenhall is on such a wrong path to accuse an innocent man because this is impossible" the movie seems to be implying "Gyllenhall is actually facing the monster right now! He found it!!!".
Well, that's not really what happened, as that guy could not be zodiac and was found innocent by the investigation.

It's not so much about failure (while it should be), it's about truth escaping these great investigators for who knows what reason, like they are about to get to their goal but they are unlucky.
Well, the reality of this story is that they were not such good investigators to catch this pos, and with this historic facts I would have painted the movie to show this failure.

Comparing it to a better movie about a failed investigation, in JFK we are given a ton of alternative theories and angles, but we are also showed as a fact that the detectives failed, they never really understood what happened, and they were never really close to solving it.
Zodiac gives us the false idea that they almost got him, and that for some reasons they couldn't patch it together for a judge.

[–] Martoto (5024) 6 years ago

Why should the movie tell you that they are not going to be able to charge or convict their, or suspect solve the case?

The movie is from Gylenhall's point of view at that time. It is not the audience's point of view, where we need to be told what the truth is unambiguously. Gyllenhall is an amateur who thinks he has found the thread that will lead to the positive identification of the Zodiac. But he unexpectedly finds Vaughn at the end of this golden thread. After being told that handwriting is the key, he dumps that angle in order to find other evidence to fit his suspect. And it's only after hearing a different name that he goes back and finds evidence to fit that suspect. The movie makes this pretty clear.

Zodiac does not give us the false idea that they almost got him. It gives the absolutely truthful story that they were convinced that their suspect was responsible but the evidence was against them. And the movie gives us lots of reasons why they did not get their man. The possibility that he wasn't the guy being one of them. None of the appearances of the Zodiac in the movie can be confidently matched to the description of Allen as depicted in the movie.

It would have been a truly bizarre movie if it kept making detached asides to the audience. "By the way. These guys you're rooting for, they're probably suspecting the wrong guy and wasting their time." Or showing them making mistakes that cause them to spend too much time on a suspect.

The story of Zodiac isn't about how the "great investigators" couldn't solve some fiendish plot. The story is that the crimes took place at all, including the attention that the killer drew which made it all the more conspicuous that it went unsolved. But the circumstances under which it does remain an open case, other than the unprecedented media circus at the time, are not that extraordinary.

Zodiac is a masterpiece of a movie. It has nothing to do with the kind of movie you want to see made about the case and the things you want it to tell you.

Have you solved the Zodiac case? If they made a movie about what you believe about it, including the "knowledge" that Allen cannot be positively identified as the killer, it couldn't be any more truthful than this movie is.

By the way. They investigations of Toschi and Armstrong where never "discredited". They just never came up with a charge.

As for Graysmith. The movie depicts him as something of an obsessive and amateur. But no more than any of the other amateurs that came in his wake claiming to have turned up more relevant and likely information, and seeking to trash him at the same time. It kind of says more about the nature of amateur Zodiac enthusiasts in general. Like dmac8 says below.

The movie is not wrong.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

I respectfully disagree with your enthusiasm about its handling of the truth. You made a very well argumented and logical post about your point of view, which I don't find convincing:
I'm not saying what the movie should have told us, I'm saying that, to be as gripping as it is, we have to believe that the investigation is somehow valid. Even if not getting to a sentence for zodiac, being sided so closely to these detectives we should be fed a story of the investigations that went somewhere.
In reality their investigations, no matter how solid they looked in their own eyes, were bogus.
For this movie to actually work, I wanted to be told, at least by the end of the journey, something like "these guys didn't catch this pos, but the few leads we see in this movies are legitimate possibilities for the real culprit, who was never caught because of whatever-procedural-reason". In reality, ALL THESE LEADS were proven to be innocent guys.
I feel like, convinced that they might be onto something, after being on the side of Toschi and Greysmith for 3 hours I was simply fooled by 3 idiots/mythomaniacs into believeing their fantastic conspirancy theories.
So, to avoid this result, the movie could have taken a step back, at least towards the end, to explain us that, yes: these men were too obsessed to see how misled they were.
Like I said, the appeal of this film comes from it being a true story: you take that away from it and it's just a long thriller that goes nowhere. And the movie takes away this true factor because, like I'm trying to explain, these investigations where in reality all discredited.
Look, there's a moment in JFK where the conspirancy theories get so many and so intricate that we take a step back to be showed how Garrison is fooling himself (he says something to his wife like "we don't know who's in it, maybe Lindon Johnson"-the movie tells us that's incorrect and that he's losing it, but stays with him because, after all, he's gonna get to something true).

[–] Martoto (5024) 6 years ago

"handling of the truth" is not something I commented on. The movie is truthful in its depiction of how the case affected Toschi and Graysmith.

You still haven't told us what is untrue in the movie.. The movie is reportedly quite truthful about the investigations by Toschi, Armstrong and Graysmith. They ended up leading nowhere, effectively. So what truth about their investigation is it that you are wanting?

"I was simply fooled by 3 idiots/mythomaniacs into believeing their fantastic conspirancy theories."

What?

Just sounds like you want a different movie about something else. The movie can only be "wrong" in that sense because you fail to tell us what you reckon it was wrong about.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Ok, so this is my problem with the movie, if I haven't made myself clear yet:
I watch this film-I find myself hooked because it's an awesome telling of this investigations-I get to the end thinking they might be getting somewhere, that they almost got him but for some reasons they couldn't nail him-go online to figure out what happened and read that actually Graysmith n Avery were totally discredited on all accounts, and Toschi just never put together enough material to get somewhere.
The movie points to 3 suspects as very likely zodiac. In reality, all these men were verified as innocent.
So, after all this journey, I feel that this movie, which sucks you in this case, never gets you to the real truth (in this case, the real truth is: no matter how convincing these cases sounded to these 3 investigators: they were sorely on the wrong path, and deluded themselves into thinking they were going some place because these suspects were declared, no matter how suspicious they looked, INNOCENT).
Nor ever it does wrap up an eloquent statement about these investigations (like I was suggesting, that the investigators were deluded and we were tagged along by 3 well intentioned fools).
On a side note: this was a big case. The monster was never caught. Are these 3 f-ups in any degree responsible for that, by diverting the attention towards the wrong people? I'm not saying they were, but this movie portrays them as heroes when, in fact, maybe they were not.

[–] Martoto (5024) 6 years ago

Clearly you're simply resentful of there being real people brought to bigger than life in a movie and it doesn't do justice the self satisfaction you obviously feel at, belatedly, appreciating even more information about the case than was included in this film.

"I watch this film-I find myself hooked because it's an awesome telling of this investigations-I get to the end thinking they might be getting somewhere, that they almost got him but for some reasons they couldn't nail him..."

That is the truth. That is what those men believed. The movie is from their POV. Naturally, you are sucked in to their obsession.

"what happened and read that actually Graysmith n Avery were totally discredited on all accounts,"

Explain how they were "discredited". Nobody has every solved the case. Graysmith published what he believes. How does discrediting come in to that? You can be dismissive of his conclusions and the relevance and reliability of the clues he turned up. But there's no context in which his legitimacy requires

"Are these 3 f-ups...."

No disrespect but fuck you. You wouldn't need to ask a quasi rhetorical question like that if there was a case to make against them. But you haven't so we'll just put this down to you being an asshole here. Sorry.

All you've done is find out, inevitably, that the whole story is even bigger than Toschi, Amrstrong, Avery and Graysmith. The fact that they'r the focus of a movie clearly puts a bee in your bonnet because you feel a movie, which is inherently mythologizing, should heroically affirm the perspective you have on the case. Tough luck.

The movie doesn't portray them as heroes but I can see that you're nevertheless envious of the attention they receive by virtue of the movie being truthful about their doomed investigation.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Your angry retorts unsuccesfully try to take my points against me, making you look like a trollish fanboy, which is what I don't think you are. Let's keep it mature.
1.I understand that you like this movie. It's very well crafted and can be very involving. But I'm afraid my point still holds up: it's difficult to call the movie great since it's a true story told from an unreliable storyteller pov, without ever the movie addressing this fallacy in any way (thus, making a fool out of the viewer).
2.These guys are TOTAL f-ups, that's not even debatable: 1 was a unreliable junkie, 1 was a famous detective that couldn't deliver, 1 was a guy looking for fame through conjectures that were borderline libel. Together they couldn't make one inch further in this case, other than get their very inconsequential 15 minutes of fame. But I certainly don't blame them for the fallacies of this film.
3.I couldn't care less about their "fame" and it's quite hilarious to think that anybody, me included, would ever be envious of these 3 poor fellas: wow, after only 40 years they got an obscure movie to shows how useless they were in dentifying a criminal (who was so stupid that he kept sending letters for everyone to read). They were so bad indeed that, like I said, they are almost guilty of interfering with justice. That's something I deeply wish I could claim one day for me, but alas!

[–] Martoto (5024) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Wow, your argument "fuck you" - stated not once but repeated twice - is actually more brilliant than your defense of this movie fallacies.
You cornered me!

Thus I must take everything back: this film never tells a fact that is untrue, infact the murder is one of the three suspects named in it, that were never arrested just because. And we are openly illustrated these facts and informed clearly of what really happened or didn't happen. What a masterpiece of filmmaking!
Not only that, but a failed detective, a junkie and a smoke seller are now my favorite characters of all time in movie history - heck, in human history!
Thank you martoto and your excellent argumentation, you opened my eyes!

[–] Martoto (5024) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

At this point, after my 5th reply to your BS fanboy trolling, I don't think I need to repeat again what I think it's wrong with this movie, nor what its fallacies are.

Anybody but you understood it loud and clear.

Please go troll somewhere else.

[–] Icecutter (363) 4 years ago

Yes fuck you my man. Fuck ups? If you were put in charge of this case I'm betting the best you could come up with is your thumb up your ass. Oh but you like to talk big though. Ever occurred to you that 1 of these 3 (I actually would say 4 or 5 looking from a true detective perspective) suspects COULD be the zodiac but they managed to or were fortunate enough to cheat the crucial evidence.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 6 years ago

It's about the obsession over cases like these. Your post is an example of the film's theme.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

Haha. You are truly, truly, truly, wrong, wrong, wrong. The case is based on circumstantial evidence like evolution. It's not supposed to be Dragnet. Research was done. Main points are fine.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

Just bumping, watched it again: great moviemaking, still too wrong on the investigation to be really good.
The final titles wrap it up describing their main suspect as the probable Zodiac (Graysmith's phone stopped ringing etc).
Again, no reality there: just tabloid level accuracy and speculations.

[–] cbsteven (229) a year ago

The fact it ended with Allen being ID'd be Mageau? The film was never meant to be about success, or good over evil or any of that. Just an investigation into killings over time. How many cases like this have had multiple arrests and charges and leads that went nowhere? As much a story of how it broke Graysmith and the detectives. You think any serial killer ever gets caught quickly? Especially in the pre-digital age where multiple offices and districts had parts of the story that overlapped. They could've got him after the Stine murder, but for the wrong description. They all did what they thought right at the time. Throughout the film, they all say only a few killings can be confirmed as Zodiac. Who can say Allen - or any other suspect - licked the stamps or handled letters himself? Nobody has been completely cleared of suspicion. Just never much evidence besides circumstantial. If you were one of the investigators, how would you do things differently?

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Nope.
The movie can be about not catching him, having multiple arrests etc.
It's just that it's not what this movie ends up being about.
Instead it presents the conclusions as correct, and many of the wrongfully accused suspects as possible.
While these theories have already been discredited by FACTS multiple times in reality.
Since it's a true story, and it's captivatingly told to us, I would have liked to be able to believe that what I was watching was true and correct. But it's not. Yet, the movie doesn't tell us how the conclusions have, indeed, been proven as wrong.

[–] cbsteven (229) a year ago

True. The whole thing is based on Graysmith's book, who thought it was Allen.
So this is opinion, not fact.

[–] Melton (4445) a year ago

Yes, and it is presented as ‘opinion, not fact’, so the criticism being made of the film here fails.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

I'm not one for "it's not historically accurate therefore it's bad" type arguments but yeah, this movie annoyed me with how it was structured.

They quite blatantly make the viewer believe ALA was the Zodiac. If you watch this movie and don't read up on the actual case you'd be forgiven for assuming he clearly did it and got away scott free.

That annoyed me as someone with an interest in true crime, I don't believe ALA was the Zodiac at all. The thing is this movie is an adaptation of the book which presents ALA as the Zodiac... so technically it's an alright adaptation but as a movie about the case it's awful.

Even taking away all this stuff I found the movie very bland.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

I had the exact same take as you except for finding it bland.
I was totally involved by it, and was eating it up because it does give you the impression that it's showing a puzzle that could make sense.
Then I read more about it and realized how wrong it was.

The exact opposite of an excellent real case study movie like The Thin Blue Line.

[–] cbsteven (229) a year ago

Saw a documentary yesterday called The Zodiac Myth, which questioned any connection between the four 'canon' murders, and how many letters were written by the same person. The more you read about the story, the less Graysmith seems relevant.

[–] BKB (9885) a year ago

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12096047/FBI-identified-Zodiac-Killer-Air-Force-veteran-Gary-Francis-Poste-died-2018.html

The Code Breakers claimed to have solved the ZODIAC Killers identity.. Who knows??

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Interesting article, thanks for the link.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Gonna check that out, thanks for the heads up.

[–] Melton (4445) a year ago

No, because in order to be ‘wrong’ the film would need to make an assertion that is provably false. It doesn’t.

It’s about how the mystery drove various men insane because circumstantial evidence fingering a few suspects was overwhelming but ultimately led nowhere because there was no proof.

The film succeeds by dragging new prey into the doomed investigation.