More in-depth film festival coverage than any other website!
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 

Overall Rating

Worth A Look: 29.55%
Average: 25%
Pretty Bad: 2.27%
Total Crap: 3.41%

8 reviews, 40 user ratings

Latest Reviews

Hanagatami by Jay Seaver

Predator, The by Jay Seaver

Fahrenheit 11/9 by Rob Gonsalves

Madeline's Madeline by Jay Seaver

Won't You Be My Neighbor? by Rob Gonsalves

Brothers' Nest by Jay Seaver

Mandy by Peter Sobczynski

Gonjiam: Haunted Asylum by Jay Seaver

Maquia: When the Promised Flower Blooms by Jay Seaver

Field Guide to Evil by Jay Seaver

subscribe to this feed

Zodiac (2007)
[] Buy posters from this movie
by EricDSnider

"A film you'll admire more than you'll enjoy."
4 stars

Perhaps it's fitting that "Zodiac," David Fincher's account of the notorious serial killer who eluded California police for more than two decades, should be as long and sprawling as the killer's career. The frequent subtitles indicating how much time has passed since the previous scene ("2 weeks later," "4 months later," "3 years later," etc.), combined with the film's actual running time (more than 2 1/2 hours), give us a real sense of the size and scope of the investigation.

Perhaps it is also appropriate (and maybe even admirable) that we feel the same things the investigators do: excitement and curiosity at first, suspense about the killer's identity ... and then frustration over how much time is passing without any arrests being made. Fincher's adherence to the facts of the case (as they're presented in Robert Graysmith's 1986 book, anyway) means that the film must end as unsatisfactorily as the real story did. We do get some closure -- but it's in the "what happened next" onscreen titles after the movie is technically over. It's a terrible ending, both for the real story and the movie.

Yet it's still a pretty watchable movie. Fincher's usual frenetic editing and showy camerawork are absent -- this movie looks nothing like "Fight Club" or "Panic Room" -- leaving him to prove his worth as a storyteller in more mainstream ways. And he does it, too, handling multiple protagonists and 20 years of history with smooth, energetic confidence. If they'd ever actually arrested the killer, "Zodiac" would be a near-perfect genre film.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Graysmith, a clean-cut San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist in 1969, when the film begins. Two murders have just been committed in neighboring cities, and the Chronicle gets a handwritten letter from a man claiming to be the doer. He offers details that only the killer and the police would know, and he demands that a code he's included be printed in the city papers the next day.

Graysmith is immediately fascinated by the case, even more so than the news reporter assigned to cover it, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), a drinker who's every bit as loose as Graysmith is buttoned-down. They eventually become compatriots of sorts, though, with Graysmith offering insights that Avery hadn't caught, eventually infecting him with his enthusiasm for the ongoing mystery.

Meanwhile, two San Francisco police inspectors, Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Armstrong (Anthony Edwards), are brought in when the killer -- calling himself the Zodiac in his continuing series of letters to the papers -- strikes again, this time in San Francisco itself. He appears to be murdering randomly, with different weapons and methodologies every time, which stymies the police force and terrifies the citizens. Toschi and Armstrong face not only the baffling nature of the case but also the bureaucratic headaches involved when a crime covers more than one jurisdiction: Vallejo police will give SFPD what they have in the way of fingerprints, but only if SFPD will turn over its handwriting analysis, which they'll have to put in the mail because Vallejo doesn't have a telefax machine, and so on and so forth. It's a wonder any work ever gets done.

The film moves subtly from one central character to another, with Graysmith, Avery, and Toschi all taking the lead at various times. The transitions are accomplished so smoothly, in fact, that you don't notice you haven't seen Jake Gyllenhaal in a while until he's been off the screen for a half-hour, and it always feels like they're going to cut back to Robert Downey Jr. any minute now. It's truly an ensemble film, with many characters appearing only once or twice before disappearing, their usefulness expended and there being no good reason to keep them around. Legendary lawyer Melvin Belli appears briefly, played by the great Brian Cox; later, Graysmith goes to Belli's house to ask him a question, winds up getting what he needs from the housekeeper, and the scene is over before Cox can even show his face. A more ordinary director would have found a way to make that scene all about Belli, if only to give Cox more screen time.

Furthermore, James Vanderbilt's dense screenplay deftly shows the nagging details that can throw a case off, the sort of details that are seldom included in fictional cop stories. We have a fingerprint left by the killer, except that maybe it was actually the doing of a clumsy cop at the crime scene. The handwriting expert (Philip Baker Hall) declares a prime suspect as not being a match, but there are some doubts regarding the expert's reliability. Every piece of evidence that Graysmith brings up in his own research, Toschi can shoot it down, and vice versa. It's maddening, and Graysmith in particular does start to go mad over it.

As a matter of fact, I daresay the film covers every major aspect of a crime spree such as this one: the effect on the investigators' personal lives, the media coverage ("Dirty Harry" was directly inspired by Zodiac), the nutcases who come out of the woodworks, the copycats, the procession of false leads and near-arrests, the politics, the paperwork, the red tape, and the paranoia.

Which brings us back to the running time. To tell a story this far-reaching and complicated, you need a lot of time, and Fincher makes good use of it. But as an audience member, do you want to watch a film, even a good one, that runs 160 minutes yet finishes without a satisfying conclusion?

Basically, it comes down to this: This is probably the best movie that could be made about this case without completely fictionalizing it. The acting is unfailingly top-notch, and at various times the story is frightening, titillating, intriguing, and even comical. But it is never any of those things for very long, and when it's over I can't help feeling as disappointed as the cops must have been -- which, again, might actually be a testament to the film's proficiency. Maybe that's the point, to make us feel exhausted along with Graysmith and Toschi. I admire the film, but I don't love it.

link directly to this review at
originally posted: 03/03/07 07:49:42
[printer] printer-friendly format  

User Comments

9/14/17 morris campbell 2 long but chilling 4 stars
1/06/11 David A. Mostly a documentary, but it gets scary when the Wallace Penny character gets into it. 4 stars
12/31/10 Simon Interesting source material, nice directing doesnt save the bland writing/pace; forgettable 3 stars
10/16/10 montedelasánimas Scary, realistic, sometimes perversely fun. Don't miss it. 5 stars
7/24/10 bagwell5 One of the best movies of the last decade. Long running time but always fascinating. 5 stars
7/05/09 MP Bartley Repeat viewings reveal more and more. An American classic. 5 stars
1/09/09 Anonymous. i loved it! 5 stars
7/27/08 Al from Bangkok Great. Nearly documentary in presentation, only riveting. 5 stars
3/05/08 ladavies Way too long, and not that memorable for me. 3 stars
1/23/08 Double M Finally a proper (and different) Fincher thriller, welcome back! Great directing and acting 5 stars
10/24/07 Ivana Mann The best serial killer movie since "Silence of the Lambs."Totally creepy & spellbinding! 5 stars
10/15/07 fools♫gold everything believable, everything enjoyable, everything just right 5 stars
9/01/07 Indrid Cold Well crafted but utterly bland, like a reenactment on Unsolved Mysteries. 3 stars
8/19/07 The Man If youre expecting a sensationalized thriller you may be disappointed. But its great. 5 stars
8/08/07 Dan Rizzi Terrific! Every performance here is outstanding, particularly Robert Downey Jr. 5 stars
8/05/07 Charles Tatum A modern day classic, riveting 5 stars
7/31/07 Monday Morning About 45 mins. too long, and Jake is about 150% too obsessed w/ the case. 3 stars
7/27/07 action movie fan good start but drags too much and has no suspense-a bit of a letdown 3 stars
7/03/07 William Goss Engrossing investigative epic is daunting in the best possible way. 4 stars
6/19/07 Jessiika My ass got really sore while i was watching it. I liked how he stabbed those people though. 3 stars
6/07/07 Germaine SO long. SO boring. Absolutely no depth or suspense. Terrible! 1 stars
5/23/07 MP Bartley Detailed, yet thoroughly absorbing. Superb performances. 4 stars
5/20/07 adam egas straight pimpin, loved it so much, soo good 1 stars
3/30/07 tracey I actually fell asleep and woke up to the cleaning crew staring at me. BORING. 3 stars
3/29/07 Lee A exciting thriller, that will haunt you long after the closing credit. 5 stars
3/21/07 carniv4 Good movie, but this tru story is not that compelling. Already forgotten it, 3 stars
3/17/07 Greg Holds your attention from start to finish, Downey is amazing! 5 stars
3/17/07 Jason Fisher Enthralling, absorbing from start to finish; no small feat for a movie nearly 3 hours long! 5 stars
3/14/07 Spark It BLOWS!!!! 1 stars
3/11/07 Pascal Boring, too long, no suprise, not even moving... very desapointing... 2 stars
3/10/07 dmitry Fincher's best because it doesn't just wallow in the grotesque 5 stars
3/06/07 Ryan Too long, too many details one some portions and not enough of others. Ending sucks 2 stars
3/06/07 George Jung Best film of 2007 so far. 5 stars
3/06/07 Luisa First half very engaging, but ran way too long... 4 stars
3/06/07 Gerald Sherfy Read the book instead; good performances and attention to detail but long in the tooth 3 stars
3/05/07 Edler Too long, no red-herrings, more like a documentary. But good to watch. 4 stars
3/04/07 Ole Man Bourbon Entertaining throughout its long run-time. Easy to recommend despite some reviews. 4 stars
3/04/07 E. N. Meticulously constructed; superlative filmmaking; a compelling and riveting film 5 stars
3/04/07 Shobert The longest episode of "Law & Order" I have ever seen. 3 stars
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:

Discuss this movie in our forum

  02-Mar-2007 (R)
  DVD: 24-Jul-2007

  18-May-2007 (15)
  DVD: 24-Sep-2007

  17-May-2007 (MA)

Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About Australia's Largest Movie Review Database.
Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | |   

All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast