» » Zodiak (2007)

Zodiak (2007) Online

Zodiak (2007) Online
Original Title :
Zodiac
Genre :
Movie / Crime / Drama / Mystery / Thriller
Year :
2007
Directror :
David Fincher
Cast :
Jake Gyllenhaal,Robert Downey Jr.,Mark Ruffalo
Writer :
James Vanderbilt,Robert Graysmith
Budget :
$65,000,000
Type :
Movie
Time :
2h 37min
Rating :
7.7/10

In the late 1960s/early 1970s, a San Francisco cartoonist becomes an amateur detective obsessed with tracking down the Zodiac Killer, an unidentified individual who terrorizes Northern California with a killing spree.

Zodiak (2007) Online

A serial killer in the San Francisco Bay Area taunts police with his letters and cryptic messages. We follow the investigators and reporters in this lightly fictionalized account of the true 1970's case as they search for the murderer, becoming obsessed with the case. Based on Robert Graysmith's book, the movie's focus is the lives and careers of the detectives and newspaper people.
Cast overview, first billed only:
Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal - Robert Graysmith
Mark Ruffalo Mark Ruffalo - Inspector David Toschi
Anthony Edwards Anthony Edwards - Inspector William Armstrong
Robert Downey Jr. Robert Downey Jr. - Paul Avery
Brian Cox Brian Cox - Melvin Belli
John Carroll Lynch John Carroll Lynch - Arthur Leigh Allen
Richmond Arquette Richmond Arquette - Zodiac 1 / Zodiac 2
Bob Stephenson Bob Stephenson - Zodiac 3
John Lacy John Lacy - Zodiac 4
Chloë Sevigny Chloë Sevigny - Melanie
Ed Setrakian Ed Setrakian - Al Hyman
John Getz John Getz - Templeton Peck
John Terry John Terry - Charles Thieriot
Candy Clark Candy Clark - Carol Fisher
Elias Koteas Elias Koteas - Sgt. Jack Mulanax

The Zodiac case was re-opened after the release of the film.

The only real comment that Robert Graysmith said about the finished screenplay was, "God, now I see why my wife divorced me."

The shooting script was 200 pages long. To prevent any problems with length that such a long script might cause, director David Fincher decided to ask his cast members to speak faster.

(At around 1 hour 40 minutes) The real-life Zodiac survivor, Bryan C. Hartnell, makes a cameo with his wife in the police station when Dermot Mulroney's character asks Mark Ruffalo's character if he wants a hug on the stairs. Bryan and his wife walk by in the background.

The murder victims' costumes were meticulously recreated from forensic evidence that was lent to the production.

The producers hired a private investigator to track down the real-life Zodiac survivor, Mike Mageau.

When Mark Ruffalo met David Toschi, the investigator he plays in the film, he was very impressed to learn that Toschi had perfect recall of every detail of every case.

Robert Graysmith and Paul Avery were not actually friends. Their relationship is fictionalized for the film.

Hair was digitally added to the close-ups of Jake Gyllenhaal's knuckles as he draws or holds letters. David Fincher felt that Gyllenhaal's hands "were too hairless and pretty".

David Fincher was always first choice to direct, based on his work on Семь (1995).

Trees had to be helicoptered in to the Lake Berryessa location, as the area had changed substantially since 1969, and David Fincher wanted it to resemble the murder site as closely as possible.

The Zodiac's first confirmed attack - the murders on Lake Herman Road - was excluded from the film, since there were no surviving victims to corroborate details. The creators thus decided to open the film with the 4th of July murders, considered to be the Zodiac's second double murders.

Because he wanted the film to be as accurate as possible, David Fincher decided not to depict any of the alleged Zodiac murders for which there were no surviving victims or witnesses.

Anthony Edwards was cast as Armstrong because David Fincher wanted him to be played by a thoroughly decent person. Fincher already knew him, not so much from his work on Скорая помощь (1994), but because he was a neighbor.

David Fincher, screenwriter James Vanderbilt, and producer Bradley J. Fischer spent 18 months conducting research into the Zodiac murders. They interviewed witnesses, family members, suspects, retired and active investigators, the only two surviving victims, and the mayors of San Francisco and Vallejo.

(At around one hour and thirty-five minutes) Scenes of Dave Toschi and Robert Graysmith watching Dirty Harry (1971) were filmed inside the Mann National Theatre in Westwood, California. The garish color schemes of the movie theater were not added by the art department. The very retro interiors of the theater had remained unchanged since 1969, when the National was first built. Interestingly, this film played at the Mann National Theatre in mid March of 2007. Thus, actual moviegoers watched celluloid moviegoers occupying their seats, on the National's trademark large screen. The theater has since been torn down.

Jake Gyllenhaal shares one of the film's creepiest scenes with Charles Fleischer. In real-life, the two have known each other since Gyllenhaal was three years old.

In order to save time, David Fincher decided to digitally add all the blood in the murder scenes.

In the film, Graysmith mentions Toschi wears his gun like Bullitt. Avery replies that Bullitt got it from Toschi, who was the inspiration for Steve McQueen's performance in Bullitt (1968).

Initially David Fincher wanted to cast Brad Pitt as Avery, before he settled on Robert Downey, Jr.

The film starts and ends with real-life Zodiac survivor Mike Mageau's character.

Dermot Mulroney had to wear a fat suit for his few short scenes, because David Fincher felt he was in far too good shape for his character.

Jake Gyllenhaal was a little mystified when David Fincher gave him a doll and an old-fashioned diaper as preparation for his role as a young father.

Jake Gyllenhaal was David Fincher's first choice for the role of Robert Graysmith. Had Gyllenhaal turned the role down, Fincher's second choice would have been Orlando Bloom.

Robert Downey Jr. was so unaccustomed to the experience of both David Fincher's multiple takes, and the process of filming digitally, that he rebelled against David for "having no time to get my shit together in my trailer" by hiding mason jars full of his urine on set.

In real-life, Melvin Belli never touched the Zodiac letter mailed to him.

The cab scene on Washington and Cherry Streets in San Francisco could not be entirely shot in San Francisco due to filming restrictions and the opposition of the neighborhood residents. So the production constructed a set replicating the intersection, including the street, apartments, and crime scene at Downey Studios, just outside of Los Angeles. Backdrops of San Francisco were digitally inserted to complete the scene. Only a few seconds of actual footage shot in the original crime scene location remains in the film.

Invariably for location shots, it was cheaper to digitally erase satellite dishes, rather than physically taking them down.

As Robert Graysmith drives his son to school, the broadcaster on his car radio makes a reference to the then-forthcoming free concert by The Rolling Stones at the Altamont Speedway. It was Melvin Belli's recommendation to the Rolling Stones to hold this particular concert.

The 110-day shoot included five weeks in the San Francisco Bay area. The film was brought in under budget.

South Korean film director Joon-ho Bong has classified David Fincher's film as a "masterpiece," writing that "There was really nothing to find fault with about it, down to the cinematography, art direction, and action."

Was sent to theaters under the name "Gemini".

David Fincher's template for the film was Alan J. Pakula's All the President's Men (1976).

Ione Skye appears in this movie in an uncredited cameo. "Hurdy Gurdy Man", by her father, Donovan, is used prominently in the soundtrack.

Shane Salerno optioned the Robert Graysmith book "Zodiac" when he was just nineteen years old, and developed it with Graysmith for several years, before selling it to Disney's Touchstone Pictures in a seven-figure deal. Salerno wrote several drafts of the screenplay before multiple administration changes at Touchstone derailed the project.

Although the film was shot digitally, certain segments, mainly those in slow motion, had to be shot on film.

David Fincher was particularly keen on having David Shire provide the music for the film, as he had done so effectively on All the President's Men (1976). His sound editor, Ren Klyce, got in touch with the legendary Walter Murch, who had worked on The Conversation (1974) with Shire, who in turn contacted Shire.

This film pays homage to Dirty Harry (1971), whose foe, Scorpio, was based on the Zodiac murderer. Another fictional policeman also encountered a foe called Scorpio around this time. In the Robert Graysmith book, they note that around the time of the Zodiac murders, the police investigated a possible connection to the Dick Tracy comic strip, as Dick Tracy faced a Zodiac-themed gang directed by a mastermind called Scorpio.

When David Fincher's planned adaptation of "The Black Dahlia" fell through, he was given James Vanderbilt's one hundred fifty-eight page screenplay.

(At around one hour and twenty-eight minutes) A time lapse shot shows the completion of the Transamerica Pyramid in 1972. At the time, it was one of the five tallest buildings in the world.

The cipher mailed to the Chronicle in the movie was actually mailed to the Examiner.

Over the years, changes have been made to Blue Rock Springs, so the murders committed there had to be recreated at a different location, that looked more like the park did in the 70s.

Paul Avery did not withdraw from working at the San Francisco Chronicle to a life of reclusive obscurity as the film suggests. In the mid-1970s, he reported on the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst and turned his reports into a book: "The Voices of Guns" (1976). He was also married with two daughters, a fact not mentioned in the film.

Daniel Craig was first choice for Paul Avery.

In multiple scenes throughout the film's soundtrack, a lone trumpet is frequently heard playing a four-note motif, and is an homage to a piece by American composer Charles Ives, aptly entitled "The Unanswered Question".

Variety reported on July 6, 2005, that Gary Oldman had signed to portray attorney Melvin Belli in this film, and a later story in the Hollywood Reporter stated that he had done so. On February 14, 2006, Gary Oldman's management company, The Douglas Management Group, issued a statement that the Hollywood Reporter story was not true, and that "Mr. Oldman is not in the film, and never was." However, in an interview on March 2, 2007, with Cinematical, the "Zodiac" author Robert Graysmith stated, "Now we had Gary Oldman at one point, to play Melvin Belli. He went to a lot of trouble, they had appliances, but just physically it wasn't going to work, he just didn't have the girth."

(At around one hour and forty-five minutes) In the restaurant scene, where Robert Graysmith is treating David Toschi to a hamburger, Toschi chews the hamburger for some time before spitting the chewed food into a napkin. The reason for this was because Mark Ruffalo, who played Toschi, is a vegetarian and refuses to consume meat. (One hour and twenty minutes into the movie, Toschi cadges half of his partner's BLT and then removes the bacon from it before eating it.)

Philip Baker Hall also appeared in Зодиак (2005), another film adaptation of the Zodiac killer. He played Frank Perkins.

The U.S. Blu-ray released by Paramount Home Video had a very limited run. For a while, the Blu-ray became one of the rarest on the market; fetching prices close to one hundred dollars from second-hand online retailers, until Warner Home Video acquired the Paramount catalogue in 2012, and re-released it the following year.

Edited using Final Cut Pro.

(At around forty-four minutes) Television host Jim Dunbar mentions Melvin Belli's appearance on Star Trek (1966) in the A.M. San Francisco scene. Belli guest-starred in Звёздный путь: And the Children Shall Lead (1968), which first aired on October 11, 1968.

After Zodiac's bus threat is released to the public, Robert is discussing "The Water Theory" in regards to how Zodiac chooses his victims (Lake Berryessa, Blue Rock Springs, Washington and Cherry.) The film's palette makes the color blue very prevalent in most of the scenes. Some examples include: Zodiac's letters are written in blue ink. The first is read by the Editor, who is wearing a blue shirt. When reading the decoded cipher, thus introducing Avery and Graysmith to each other, they are both wearing blue shirts. Robert is wearing a blue shirt in every scene he's in. In Morti's, Graysmith introduces to Paul Avery a blue drink called an Aqua Velva. In the following shot, with the multiple empty glasses, the song "Crystal Blue Persuasion" by Tommy James & The Shondells plays. Melvin Belli's suit is navy blue, with a light blue shirt. The woman who pulls over to help a Zodiac victim, is wearing a blue jacket. Dave Toschi's suit is light blue when reading Zodiac's Halloween card. Paul Avery's shirt on the airplane is blue. Arthur Leigh Allen's work coveralls are dark blue. When Robert is on the phone, while his kids are going over his files, the shirt he wears, and the phone are blue.

Screenwriter James Vanderbilt had read Robert Graysmith's book in 1986 while in high school, and had met the man at the premiere of Автофокус (2002).

(At around twenty-four minutes) The phone number 626-2345 displayed on the Yellow Cab in the film, was the actual phone number for the Yellow Cab Company in San Francisco. By the time that the film was released, the number had been changed.

George Lucas gave an interview to Empire magazine once stating that the Zodiac murders captured his imagination at the time as a high schooler and then college student at USC, and he always felt like Toschi was harshly judged for how the investigation was handled. He explained this is why he named a location on Tatooine Tosche Station, in honor of the SFPD inspector.

Although Toschi and Armstrong are San Francisco Police Department Inspectors, their actual responsibilities are identical to those of detectives in other municipal police organizations. The San Francisco Police Department calls their detectives "inspectors". (Which anyone who has ever seen a police drama set in San Francisco knows.)

The Warner Brothers and Paramount logos used at the start of the film are almost identical to the ones used by the respective studios in 1969, but not completely. In the case of Warner Brothers, their 1969 releases did not use their classic shield as depicted here, but instead carried a "Warner Bros.-Seven Arts" logo, used when the studio had merged with Ray Stark and Eliot Hyman's production company, Seven Arts. As for the Paramount logo, where it would have read "A Gulf+Western company" in 1969, it now reads "A Viacom Company", reflecting current ownership.

The two leads, Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo, don't share a scene until thirty-two minutes and thirty-seven seconds into the film.

In the flyover shot of the early construction of the Transamerica Pyramid, the "box" foundation is completely devoid of any piles or columns. Unlike most conventional high-rise foundations, the Pyramid was uniquely constructed without any piles driven into the bedrock. The weight of the building actually rests on trusses at the first two levels, and the trusses rest on top of this "box".

(At around fourteen minutes) The bar Paul Avery frequents in the film is called Morti's. Mortis is Latin for death.

(At around forty-three minutes) In the newsroom scene, the theme music is that used by National Nine News (Australia) in the 80s and 90s.

Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo were cast in part thanks to Jennifer Aniston. Director David Fincher was in the pre-production stages of the film when he asked her who some of her favorite co-stars were. She replied with Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo, who she had previously worked with on Хорошая девочка (2002) and Ходят слухи... (2005).

Jake Gyllenhaal and John Carroll Lynch previously played father and son in Парень из пузыря (2001).

Though Callahan's Diner was a set built for the film, the Callahan's Diner logo and window script is identical to that used by Callahan's Diner at 1213 Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica, California. It's quite likely that members of the cast and/or crew of the film were familiar with the Santa Monica restaurant and used it as an art model for the San Francisco locale. The "Dirty Harry" reference inherent in the diner's name may simply be an added plus.

The cocktail is made with vodka, gin, lemon-lime, and Blue Curaçao.

Chosen by "Les Cahiers du cinéma" (France) as one of the 10 best pictures of 2007 (#5, tied with La France (2007)).

Toschi flies to Riverside on PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines). PSA was one of the first large discount airlines, operating from 1949 to 1988 when it was integrated into USAir. It is not related to Southwest Airlines.

(At around one hour and thirty-five minutes) Captain Lee tells Toschi to take some time off and "go to Candlestick". Candlestick Park was the home of the San Francisco Giants from its construction in 1960 to 2000, the San Francisco 49ers from 1971 to 2013, and the Oakland Raiders in 1961. In 2014, the 49ers moved to their new home at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara and Candlestick Park was demolished in 2015.

Mark Ruffalo's character, Dave Toschi, eats animal crackers throughout the film. Ruffalo is a vegetarian in real life (during the diner scene, he's actually seen spitting out a bite of his burger into a napkin because he refused to swallow it). As such, these crackers are the only "animals" Ruffalo actually eats.

Two of the lead actors, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey, Jr., would go on to co-star in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as The Hulk and Iron Man respectively. Jake Gyllenhall would also star in Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), set in the same universe.

The KYA radio station jingle can be heard in the opening scene. KYA began broadcasting in 1926 in San Francisco, and had adopted a Top 40 format by the film's time frame.

In the real investigation, on October 6, 1969, Arthur Leigh Allen was interviewed by detective John Lynch of the Vallejo Police Department. In the movie, Arthur Leigh Allen is played by John Carroll Lynch.

In the film when the suspected killer, Arthur Leigh Allen, is brought in for questioning, a title appears on screen: SEPT. 14, 1972. After he is released on lack of evidence, Inspector David Toschi attends a SPECIAL SCREENING - SFPD on a marquee of the NORTH POINT THEATER which is a screening of DIRTY HARRY. DIRTY HARRY was released on Dec. 22, 1971. In reality, a gala world premiere benefit performance was held for the San Francisco Police Activities League, most likely a few days before the Dec. 22 opening.

Clea DuVall previously starred in Хелтер Скелтер (2004). Both films are about murders which took place in California in 1969.

December 18th, the birthday of Arthur Leigh Allen is also the birthday of David Fincher's friend and frequent star in his movies, Brad Pitt, and other famous people, like Steven Spielberg, Ray Liotta, and Katie Holmes.

In the lobby where the screening of Dirty Harry (1971) is taking place, is a full length standee of Clint Eastwood. While Eastwood's stance is exactly the same as the original 1971 standee for the film, in this version he is pointing his famous .44 Magnum downwards whereas in the original he is pointing the pistol outwards at a horizontal level.

In one of the Zodiac's letters, he muses on who would portray him in a film about him. In this film, he is portrayed by three separate actors, and in any shot featuring the Zodiac, the actor's faces are always out of focus or obscured. This served to keep the audience guessing, and perhaps as a balk to the actual Zodiac killer, so that he wouldn't be portrayed by a visible, or famous actor.

Talks with Sony fell through when the studio insisted that the film should not be any longer than two hours and fifteen minutes. Warner Brothers and Paramount agreed to share the production costs, even though a "talky" film with an inconclusive ending was a tough sell.


User reviews

Hunaya

Hunaya

"Zodiac" may frustrate viewers who come to David Fincher's latest film expecting a traditional serial killer thriller. The film begins with a couple of hair-raising and rather brutal recreations of murders carried out by the mysterious killer who terrorized the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These early scenes are shocking and, compared to the rest of the film, disorienting, because they offer the only time that we come close to seeing events from the killer's perspective. As the film progresses, the Zodiac killer himself fades into the background, and the movie turns into a meticulous and engrossing document of the investigation to track him down, an investigation that includes countless blind alleys and false clues and which to this day has not reached a conclusion. I would be more prone to label the somewhat rambling screenplay as sloppy storytelling if I did not feel that Fincher tells the story exactly as he wants to. The elusive narrative works, because the film is about an elusive villain.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist working for the "San Francisco Chronicle" at the time the Zodiac killer began his gruesome work. He becomes fascinated by the case, and takes it on as a sort of morbid personal hobby long after the police department has given it up as a lost cause. Graysmith eventually wrote the book on which this film is based, and according to his accounts, he discovered enough evidence about one of the suspects in the case to put the police back on his trail years after he'd been cleared for lack of evidence. Other characters come and go. Robert Downey, Jr. does characteristically terrific work as a reporter at the "Chronicle" who grabs his own portion of notoriety through his involvement in the case. Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards play the two detectives in charge of the investigation. Chloe Sevigny plays Gyllenhaal's put-upon wife, who gradually loses her husband to his obsession. All of the actors deliver thrilling performances, many of them against the odds. Since this isn't a character driven movie, many of the characters remain undeveloped, but not, for once, to the detriment of the film. This story isn't about the people involved, but rather about their role in the Zodiac saga; once they've served their purpose, Fincher dispenses with them. Ironically, a film that clocks in at nearly 3 hours exhibits a great deal of narrative economy.

Parts of "Zodiac" are intensely creepy. Fincher effectively uses the rainy San Francisco atmosphere to its maximum potential, and the grimy browns and grays of the production design call to mind Fincher's other well-known films, like "Seven" and "Fight Club." But "Zodiac" is much more grown up than those films, and for an audience to enjoy it, it has to have an attention span. Long scenes are given to analyzing handwriting samples, recreating the scenes of murders, digging through newspaper clippings and files. You can tell that Fincher is fascinated by police work in the pre-CSI era, when fax machines were still a novel invention. He delves into the investigative process with a nearly fetishistic attention to detail, but he makes all of it endlessly mesmerizing. He does his best to bring everything to some sort of conclusion, but the real-life end to the story makes a complete conclusion impossible. This film is more about the journey than the destination, and what a journey it is.

Grade: A
Kajishakar

Kajishakar

Usually when a film gets made about a media grabbing unsolved crime, the resulting movie tends to be overtly sensational and at best remotely connected to what really happened. Considering that director David Fincher's last film about a serial killer was the gripping but deeply disturbing Se7en, his take on the Zodiac killer almost seemed primed to be an extreme, nail-biting thriller.

Instead what he's given us is a well argued thesis on the possible identity of the Zodiac. While there are some very intense scenes, Fincher takes a somewhat unexpected approach on the subject. All of the killings take place pretty early on in the movie, with the bulk of the story centering on the actual investigation into the killer by both the cops and a cartoonist who becomes obsessed with the case. In fact, the depictions of the murders are done in a manner that is fairly reverent towards the victims while still conveying the cruelty of them.

Some people may find themselves disappointed by this two and a half hour epic if they go in expecting the usual serial killer fare. But it's a must see for any fan of Fincher's work, or anybody who likes a good detective story.
Flocton

Flocton

I have been highly interested and engrossed in the Zodiac killer story for the last 5 years now and I can say, without doubt, that this is the best and most accurate telling of the story. The film presents numerous details that were unknown to me before seeing it. All of these facts and theories are thrown together in a way that strings the viewer along, you think it's someone, then you get new information and that person is no longer a suspect. Fincher really puts you into the life of a detective working on the case. You feel just as excited when new information comes about and are equally disappointed when it leads to another dead end.

The film is beautifully shot (on VIPER digital cameras) and once again, Fincher shows us his wonderfully adept skills with CGI shots. All of the actors shine and truly become their characters. Jake Gyllenhall and Robert Downey Jr. put in excellent performances, as does Mark Ruffalo. I was also pleasantly surprised to see Phillip Baker Hall join the ensemble.

The only complaint I have heard that holds any water is that the film is too long. At roughly 2 1/2 hours, I can see how many would think that is long, but you have to realize that this is an intricate story with deep characters who need to be examined and understood. A standard 90 minute film, or even a two hour cut, would not have been able to tell the story as well. Character motivation and important details would have been left on the cutting room floor.

If you have followed the Zodiac case, you will be happy to see how well done this movie is. If you don't know anything about the case, you will be given an excellent story that will make you want to learn more about it. Regardless, you should do yourself a favor and see this movie. If nothing else, it's better than "Wild Hogs".
Gogal

Gogal

First up (and it's already been said)...this film is not going to appeal to the crash-bang- wallop-attention-span-of-a-bored-gnat brigade out there. Having read a lot of the reviews here, everyone seems to be divided in two. Love it...hate it. Which way will you go?

Yes, it's long. But let's face it, this is not a film that can be wrapped up in an hour and a half. There's an awful lot of detail involved in this case. David Fincher was very thorough in his research and full marks to him. This is an excellent, compelling film for anyone interested in true crime and general detective work.

I saw this film a few hours ago and was completely absorbed by it. The opening 4th of July sequence is worthy of the ticket price alone. And I challenge anyone to listen to "Hurdy Gurdy Man" by Donovan without a cold chill running down their spine after watching this...

The main performances are excellent - Robert Downey Jr and Jake Gyllenhaal in particular are a standout. Any feminists out there won't be happy with the rather one-dimensional women's roles (and I happen to be female), but this is not what this film is about. It's about a handful of men's obsessive involvement with one case. And these men ARE utterly obsessed. And after so much taunting by the Zodiac with his letters and cyphers, who can blame them for their obsession?

As for the depiction of the murders, they are quite shocking in their brief brutality with absolutely no glamorous or excessive lingering shots of the aftermath. This makes them infinitely more real and much more disturbing...

Combine this with utterly believable dialogue, a superb soundtrack and marvellous production design and you have one classy movie. For all those tired of your average eye and brain-candy fodder...Go see. For those who can't appreciate a class act when you see it, you've missed out...
Oreavi

Oreavi

*This comment may contain spoilers, but I tried to be as vague as possible, and I think that this movie actually improves if you more or less know the ending.*

When David Fincher's ZODIAC opens with the year "1969" on the screen, a colorful wide angle shot of California, and a song from "Hair" on the soundtrack, we think we know what we are in for: an atmospheric historical epic. Then the film's first murder happens, and we are at the San Francisco chronicle with Jake Gyllenhall and Robert Downey, Jr., just recognizable enough under their period garb.

We see three other murders or almost-murders within the first 1 1/2 hours of this 2 1/2 hour movie, and they are terrifying in a way that few movie murders are: this is one of the only movies that succeeds at making you identify with the victims, and the murder scenes contain enough gore to be convincing but not so much gore that it becomes its own aesthetic, as in other Fincher films.

But ZODIAC is so long that eventually, the murders fail to keep our attention. The movie makes so many leaps through time and recounts so many investigations that lead nowhere, it is easy to forget that it began as an exciting movie.

One could easily argue that the movie has a right to be so uneventful because it is a "realistic" reflection of police procedure and of, well, reality. It is, but one can't help but think, With all the time-lapsing that goes on (it constantly jumps months ahead in the late '60s and early '70s, and then jumps from '73 to '77 to '83 to '91), why couldn't it skip more boring parts? The movie manages to be both too truncated and too thorough.

On a positive note, the digital cinematography by Harris Savides gives the film a consistently interesting look, which is something that many better movies don't have. He gives the film the signature "Fincher" look: saturated pastels in the daytime and a vague yellow-green tint at night. The movie is visually interesting without being calling too much attention to itself, but it's a shame that there's not enough to watch. The actors are sufficient, but the movie has no protagonist and we don't get to know anyone well enough - not even Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhall), who becomes the de facto main character half way through.

The friendship between Graysmith and Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) - particularly a bar scene in which Graysmith introduces Avery to the merits of girly drinks - is interesting enough, but when Avery ceases to be a major character, we don't get enough of an indication that Graysmith has a life outside of his obsession with the Zodiac case. That may have been the point, but it doesn't work: there is nothing wrong with a plot that goes nowhere if the characters manage to hold our interest, but they don't hold our interest for all 2 1/2 hours, and the movie itself seems to lose interest in Graysmith towards the end. ZODIAC has no pay-off, which wouldn't be a problem if it weren't such a plot-driven film.

Still, it has its moments that nearly redeem it. It's a bit like a friend who tells long and meandering but enthusiastic stories: once you realize that his stories will always be too long, you can focus on the better parts. But his stories are still too long.
Fordg

Fordg

Zodiac, David Fincher's film about the impact the San Francisco Bay Area serial killer's case had on three primary characters is delivered with great attention to detail and proper pacing. Zodiac is not a film that uses or relies on suspended disbelief to succeed and does not attempt to compress five years of story into one in order to keep viewers interested. Instead it relies heavily on the facts and uses all of its 158 minutes to present them in almost linear form and staccato fashion.

Set primarily in San Francisco in the late 1960's and 70's (and eventually the 80's) Fincher's Zodiac takes no artistic license by adding the obligatory car chase scene down Russian Hill, drug enhanced evening in Haight-Ashbury or conspiracy oriented behind the scenes moves by City Hall. Instead the audience is presented with a credible story that portrays how stress, tension, frustration and fascination play upon the lives of S. F. Police Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), S.F. Chronicle Editorial Cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhall), and S.F. Chronicle reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.). Each of these people, as well as those surrounding them are operating well within the confines of every day life and the establishment. Fincher does not let Zodiac wander outside its central story, and therefore no editorial comment about the Vietnam War or similar events of the day are offered. Insights about the impact on the victims (who survive) or their families are only touched upon if they remain central to the story.

The initial scenes of the movie depict the killer in operation and they are not sugar coated. However, viewers wanting to see a film in the style of Fincher's Alien (3), Se7en or even Fight Club (i.e., blood and gore to almost surreal levels) should look elsewhere.

Zodiac is a well crafted production on all fronts. In addition to Fincher, the lead actors and extensive (and well known) supporting cast Zodiac producer's assembled a credible team. James Vanderbilt (Screenplay), David Shire (Score), Donald Burt (Production Design), Keith Cunningham (Art Direction), Victor Zolfo (Set Direction) and Casey Storm (Costume Design) all deliver quality work in their respective areas. There are no weak spots in this film. Zodiac may not (or attempt to) dazzle, but it does please.
Kinashand

Kinashand

Dark. Moody. Atmospheric. All words to describe a candlelight dinner with Johnny Betts. But these words can also be used to accurately describe David Fincher's latest foray into the serial killer genre.

Zodiac has been on my "most anticipated" list for quite some time, but having watched many documentaries and read several articles on the subject, I couldn't help but wonder how the film could completely keep my interest when I already knew so much about the material. Plus, we're all aware that the case officially remains unresolved, so are we to resign ourselves to accept an unsatisfactory conclusion?

It took no more than the film's chilling opening scene to cast my fears aside and glue me to the seat for 158 minutes. My familiarity with the source material actually heightened my enjoyment because I was surprised at how accurately the film depicted the events. I recognized names and details that I wouldn't have otherwise.

I also feel that not definitively knowing the Zodiac's identity adds more suspense to the story. We're introduced to a number of suspects, and since this is, in part, one man's interpretation of circumstantial evidence, we're allowed to assume that any of the suspects could be the mysterious killer. It's a plot device that effectively keeps the viewer in a constant state of unease.

I know there are multiple theories on the Zodiac's identity, so you can argue that the film ends on an anticlimactic note. But the movie does have focus, and it presents a compelling case against one of the suspects in such a way that it delivers as much closure as you can expect.

The actors are great (especially Downey and his welcome comic relief), the atmosphere is foreboding, and the investigative process is engaging. It may run a little long for some, but I didn't mind the runtime at all. It's a fascinating case, and I wanted all the information the movie was willing to give me.

Zodiac is the kind of film that sticks with you. I was at a friend's house late after the screening, and when I arrived home I saw a lone car's headlights appear from up the street. My heart began to race a little as I hastened to my door. I knew then and there that a new Zodiac killer was in the vicinity, and I had no time to tarry.

It's been a while since a movie instilled that sort of realistic dread, and I don't know if that's a good thing, but it's certainly a sign (no pun intended) of the film's success in heightening our awareness of what kind of real-life monsters might be lurking in the shadows.

THE GIST

Zodiac gives viewers an excellent combination of nerve-racking suspense and desperately obsessed police procedural work. The majority of viewers with even the slightest interest in the case should be riveted. Those of you with a severely small attention span should probably stick to Norbit instead.
Dagdardana

Dagdardana

The era in which Zodiac takes place bridges two eras in urban America. The Zodiac appeared on the tail end of a crime-spree that rampaged across the US in the late 1960's. His settling in the SF Bay Area may be one of a number of social phenomenons that pushed America's view of itself out of an innocent 1950's sensibility and into a harder and darker view that became more prevalent starting in the 1970's and into the 1980's. People, even in urban areas, used to be far more trusting of one another, friendly, and civil. Many of the events of the 1960's gave urban Americans a much more cynical and cautious attitude toward people they didn't know. Don't trust or talk to strangers. Better to sacrifice helpfulness than to wind up dead. People are out to take advantage. At least in urban areas nowadays, it seems, people are much less willing to take the risk to meeting someone they don't know, largely out of fear.

The film Zodiac chronicles the strange unknowable and faceless figure that emerged as a serial killer in Northern California in the late 1960's and early 1970's. He sent letters to the San Francisco Chronicle and other newspapers, outlining his last and future kills, and he revealed he was inspired by the 1930's cult classic "The Most Dangerous Game". The point of view is largely from the side of the press with a character from SF Homicide that is also tracking the case. One character, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is an SF Chronicle cartoonist who at first takes an amateur's interest in the case, often bothering fellow beat journalist Paul Avery, played brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr. Only later does the cartoonist engage on his own investigation to reveal the identity of the Zodiac. When Graysmith begins receiving anonymous phone calls with nothing but heavy breathing, you can't help but wonder if he's also playing the same game, and if he may also become one of the hunted.

One of the most brilliant aspects of the film is its pacing. It never lets up and the suspense is always there, which becomes unsettling when you realize that these events actually took place instead of purely in the imagination of a modern suspense novelist. There is an eeriness which pervades the entire film. A car stopping unexpectedly in a nearly-deserted area is more frightening than most scenes in your average low-budget slasher flicks.

I do have a couple of shortcomings to this film. There are a couple of scenes where the cruelty and brutality of the violence is such that not all viewers will be able to handle this movie. I found I did have to turn away at a couple of scenes. Also, there are a couple of moments when the state of the investigation is not made clear. However, even given these shortcoming, Zodiac is a brilliant movie that tackles a subject-matter that probably could not have been brought to the screen during the period it depicts.

The Zodiac came to personify one of the constant fears of living in urban America: a faceless, emotionless killer that comes out of the shadows of a dark alley to commit heinous violence. In the end, we fear strangers because of this, but we end up sacrificing love. It is an ironic aspect of human nature that people can do to strangers what would be almost unthinkable to do to people that we know. In addition to the poor innocent people that were brutally murdered, the Zodiac committed another crime against humanity. He compromised our sense of trust, civility, and in many ways, love for our fellow human beings even when we might not know them.
Shakanos

Shakanos

I am tired of people writing comments like this, "Not Fincher's best". Honestly who cares. We all agree that Fincher's best is either Seven or Fight Club, two outstanding masterpieces. There is a big margin between a film like one of those and a terrible film, and people don't seem to realize that. These people even do this with other filmmakers like Spielberg or Scorsese, the fact that these filmmakers don't reproduce Schindler's List or Raging Bull doesn't mean that their new stuff isn't good, or worth seeing. I think it is a stupid way to comment on a film, eliminating the critic's credibility. I was lucky enough to catch an advanced screening of Zodiac last night, and I must say that at first I was discouraged by two things, some of the comments I have read and the running time. However I am glad to say that I enjoyed this film, very much. It is a solid suspense thriller that pins you to your seat. Being a true story adds quite a lot to the experience, and besides, Fincher did a wonderful job is staying loyal to the story and at the same time adding his unique flavor to it. The cinematography, like every Fincher film, is great, the darkness and griddiness of the story are perfectly portrayed in the film's visual elements. I was surprised by the picture quality of the Viper, the digital camera with which this film was shot. Many people have been criticizing this choice, but I respect it, he is embracing a new technology and making it work. Of course its still not a match to 35 mm, but if quality filmmakers don't start experimenting with it, it will never be. Now the reason why this film falls behind Seven and Fight Club, I think, is because of a problem with the characters. They seem to be a little weak at times. The performances were great, especially Robert Downey Jr., but I think that this film falls short, when it comes to a true exploration of complex characters, which is the key to Fincher's previous films.

So... my advice to everyone is to ignore most of the negative comments and see the film yourself. I found it to be a great story told in a remarkable way, very entertaining, with great performances, and wonderful direction.
Zieryn

Zieryn

Audiences have waited a while for a new piece of work from Mr. David Fincher and now that hiatus is officially over. Straying away from his style that earned him a 'cult' following, he brings out a new side to himself, some techniques not yet observed in his repertoire.

ZODIAC feels like it was made by a perfectionist, everything flows so smoothly. The editing is pinch-perfect. Not only that, but Ficher shows that he is an actor's director as well, directing his cast into true life roles wonderfully. But the credit does not go all on to his shoulders. The actors have a lot to do with that themselves. Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays the author of the book of the same name, plays his character with an irresistible 'nerdi-ness' that is just fun to watch. Then it is amazing to watch Gyllenhaal transform that character into an obsessed wannabe detective, losing all focus and normal aspects of his life. Mark Ruffalo plays a humorous and overworked cop with incredibility. He really gets the job done. Downey Jr., however small his role was, plays on the screen with a witty insanity that brings most of the laughs of the movie. The acting really is a major pro. ZODIAC may come out at a long time slot but the viewer will never realize it because of the film pulling one in, and not wanting to leave until the case is solved. That is why ZODIAC is fantastic and a great welcome back gift from Fincher to not only his fans, but to everyone. ZODIAC is definitely the best film of 2007 so far.
Mavegelv

Mavegelv

"Zodiac" is a perfect match of visionary director and hard to condense material. James Vanderbilt did an admirable job of taking a larger than one life story and somehow adapted all these people and events (chronicled in Robert Graysmith's two thorough books on the subject) into a script that works. He should have received an Oscar nomination, along with Fincher, supporting actor Mark Ruffalo (portraying Inspector Dave Toschi) and of course, "Zodiac" itself for best picture. But the silly academy doesn't reward films like this often and I'll bet less than 20% of them even saw it!

As author James Ellroy says on a commentary track, this film is respectful of the victims. The intensity of a murder investigation has rarely been recreated more impressively than here. To compare modern (21st century) technology with what these folks had to work with in the late 60's/70's is to realize "Zodiac", whoever he was, had to be one of the dumb luckiest criminals of all time. His ideas were not original to put it politely and the fact he probably was a child molester really makes him a predator that treated society in general like a little innocent he abused for his own perverse reasons. Men who feel powerless and then get a big gun are the most dangerous fools of all because they're ticked off and want somebody, anybody to pay!
Kalrajas

Kalrajas

Just a few days ago, my mom and I watched a documentary on the famous Zodiac killer and his victims. It was incredibly interesting so it got me thinking about the film Zodiac that was released this year and lucky enough it was released on DVD today so I rented it. My friend and I just watched it a couple of hours ago and really liked it, especially on how it ended and was over all shot. I thought it was kinda cool how it started off like a documentary type of movie, but then was turning into a thriller that kept you going and guessing, even if you knew the whole story.

In the small towns of California, there are several brutal murders, eventually going onto San Fransisco. These murders are extremely violent and very random, and every time it happens there is a message or sign that is left by the killer that calls himself the "Zodiac". He sends letters to the press on how and where he killed his victims and teases the police that they will never catch him. But Robert, one of the newspaper cartoonist starts to obsess about the killer, who he is and how they can capture him.

With an all star cast, we had absolutely no problem with acting because it was terrific. Jake and Mark held their own very well. The whole story is very chilling and kept you going. The Zodiac Killer is a case that forever will remain a mystery and it was a great idea for a film, Fincher added a Se7en type of feel to this film. It's so funny how I knew the story and how it ended already, but I was actually just waiting to see what would happen in the next scene. I would highly recommend this film to any thriller fan, I'm sure you'll enjoy it, it's a great one for 2007.

8/10
Braned

Braned

I knew a good amount about this case going into the film as I always found the famous serial killer ones very interesting when I'd see a TV special about them on. It's also no secret that it's one of the few that went unsolvable to this day, so I really didn't know what to expect from a thriller that pretty much everyone already knows how it'll end. However "Zodiac" was made with a style that allowed the perspective to seem fresh, even if it ultimately wasn't. This is a must see for any true lover of real police work that gets down to the nitty-gritty of what detectives have to go through in actuality. No one's job is glamorized and in fact it's portrayed as the other way around…people get fired, demoted, or simply go flat out crazy. What fascinated me so much about the 'Zodiac Killer' more than the other murderers I've heard about was how he kept changing his methods, which is the main reason why he was able to elude capture for so long. All in all this made for one excellent cinematic puzzle that remained that way.

The biggest surprise of this movie was that David Fincher directed it. Even though he doesn't come out with many new films…with the exception of maybe "Panic Room", those that he does direct are both highly innovative and entertaining. However this effort strayed away from the beaten path and was very different from the type of flick he usually churns out, which turned out to be a worthy venture. While I still prefer the likes of "Seven" and "Fight Club", this was close to them in overall quality. So much detail was taken into account when recreating the time period and crimes. Even though the film was shot digitally they edited it so the appearance had a grainy texture as it did back in the 70's. Also the costumes, settings, modes of transportation, and everything else was matched to a T.

The acting was strictly topnotch here and the biggest kudos goes to Robert Downey Jr. He was absolutely amazing! It's sad that he's at his best when he's playing a character that gets lost in a world of drugs and alcohol as his life has imitated this art for quite some time. Nevertheless he was so amusing to watch and added a playful quirkiness to Paul Avery that I don't think it would've been possible to play him any better. While Robert easily stole the show, a very honorable mention was Mark Ruffalo. He did quite well too and while he usually does, this went above and beyond what he's normally capable of. It's evident that as decent as Mark always has been in the past, there's always room for improvement. Everyone else put in great turns too, and there wasn't a single performance that came close to being unbelievable.

Potential viewers should also be warned, this film isn't for everybody. There are a few very disturbing sequences, that while they aren't even terribly graphic…still manage to be creepy beyond belief due to their realism pertaining to the sheer coldness in which they're displayed. Another factor is the 160-minute running time, which except for the first third when the actual killings are taking place, quickly starts dragging on following that. All the facts had to be included though, so it really couldn't have been much shorter without losing its potency. You also have to remain open-minded if you watch it and can't demand any kind of closure except for what you can conclude on your own; otherwise you'll leave awfully disappointed. Finally it can be argued that only one viewpoint is being showed here and that is the author's, this automatically leads to a bias. I personally think it's the most logical account of events, but if you want an impartial take on what went down, your best bet is to watch a documentary on the history of events that took place.

It's very scary to think that such a gruesome individual could go about undetected for so long and that we'll never get to find out the real answer on who it was behind everything. Fincher's latest contribution is a compelling view for all those with strong stomachs and was eerily refreshing compared to what junk has been streaming out of Hollywood lately. There are many notable guest appearances and is quite simply a well-done movie, even if it did get hammed up a little bit. I personally am going to avoid secluded places for awhile…just in case my astrological sign reads anywhere near the same as it did for all the poor victims.
porosh

porosh

Less pyrotechnics and more drama. As far as I'm concerned that is a major plus in a Fincher movie. Rigorous and long but compelling just the same. A script, finally, that is almost totally devoid of cheap shots in a story that lent itself for cheap shots. It reminded me a little of Richard Fleischer's The Boston Strangler with a major difference: most of us know the story remains inconclusive - well, I don't know if "most" I certainly did - but, strangely enough it doesn't detract from its fun moments of suspense and the thoroughness of the proceedings. Robert Downey Jr is superb, immediately recognizable and totally believable at the same time. Jake Gylenhaall's connection with us - the audience - is strong and powerful as well as Mark Ruffalo's cop. All in all one of Fincher's most serious, and best films.
Fenritaur

Fenritaur

I admit, I was skeptical that a movie could be made about a 10+ year long murder investigation with very few actual murders and no arrests. I was even more skeptical that it could actually be funny, which I'd read in a review was the case.

All my doubts were for nothing, David Fincher has crafted yet another excellent film.

Here's the best way I can convey how good it is. I'm seven and a half months pregnant. I did not go to the bathroom once, in the nearly three hours of running time.

Wonderful acting, a really well done script that is true to the actual events and characters involved, a lot of dry humor which adds a much needed levity to an otherwise intense drama. The authentic dated look of the film serves to heighten the sense that you are watching real events that happened to real people.

If you are at all a fan of true crime, this film is a must see.
adventure time

adventure time

Boring. Nothing happens. NOTHING! If you're a David Fincher martyr, you'll make yourself like it regardless. No amount of reviews will be able to sway your opinions. Over two and a half hours??? What was gained from that, other than making it dreadful to watch in one sitting? Hence, I broke it up into three nights at about 45 minutes a pop. It's really hard for it to hold your interest at all. Here's a helpful hint - watch it with subtitles on. The dialogue is also way too San Francisco local and the names of too many cities, lakes, streets, counties, and buildings are mentioned too fast and too often that it will make your head spin. Some cool fashions and set design to recreate the late 60's and 70's, that about the only merit this film had. Other than that, let's just say I'm glad I borrowed it from my neighbor instead of spending any hard earned money dragging through this!
Fearlessdweller

Fearlessdweller

The characters are compelling, be they reporter, cop or possible killer. Jake Gyllendall gives the best performance. His character takes over the last third of the film, as he gets close to the likely killer(s). A cat and mouse scene with Jake's character at one of their homes had me twisting my napkin into shreds. The outdoor shots of San Francisco make artistic use of vibrant dark colors at night, and glowing pastels during the day. The interiors capture the maze-like process the detectives and reporters must navigate. The murder scenes reminded me of Bonnie and Clyde.

Oddly, all three female victims look and act alike, with the wide-eyed innocence of a 70's airline stewardess. The other female characters are well-drawn.

The possible killer's are fascinating. Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey, Jr. are also excellent.
Sataxe

Sataxe

Right up until the release of Panic Room, David Fincher could do no wrong. It's truly all over now.

I went to a radio station screening of the movie yesterday, and I was utterly disappointed. Most people know the story of the Zodiac, so a lot of the suspense would be gone. But a good movie about a serial killer needs suspense. The movie starts off brilliantly, focusing on writer Paul Avery's downward decent of obsession with the story and the revelation of the identity of the killer. Robert Downey Jr's portrayal is stunning, and he builds much empathy for the character. The story moves along at a brisk pace, and it keeps you entertained.

Then when you think the movie is over, it just keeps going. It tells the story of the decent of Robert Graysmith, retreading a similar storyline for another hour plus. Jake Gyllenhaal does a decent job, but the audience quickly loses interest. The movie keeps track of time by announcing the time lapse between scenes (2 months later, for example) and as the movie passes the two hour mark you could hear the audience groan every time a new announcement of time was displayed.

Why is this a bad movie? The photography, set dressing, and costuming was top notch. The cast was brilliant. Even the story is compelling, but the editing by Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall seems to be missing. I think Fincher used every frame he shot in the final cut, and that does this movie a terrible disservice. When telling a story you have to read your audience, and make sure they stayed engaged. This movie loses you at 1:50. I hardly ever tell people to stay away from a movie, but I'm telling you to stay away from Zodiac. It will leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.
Yozshubei

Yozshubei

I saw this because of the positive reviews about it. I have to say I have never heard of Zodiac before this, and didn't really care about the facts when I heard about them in this movie. However that's what this is all about. The whole script, written by someone who grew up in the area at the time and was fascinated by the Zodiac killings, painstakingly and painfully follows the investigation for him. Every ten minutes, the film cuts to a random date in the future (and tells you) when the next interesting event happens. It is like a blow-by-blow reconstruction. There really is no dramatisation at all. Even by the time of the second murder, the scene was dragged out so much, you wish Zodiac would just get on with it.

Then the inept, bureaucratic nightmare of police investigations starts (multiple officers are involved as the murders happened in different counties). Yes, it's great to see that it took the police 1 and a half years to get a warrant for one suspect and so on, but did I really care? To compound this, there are so many suspects and threads of evidence and handwriting samples that you get detached from it all and again lose interest.

Then there is Graysmith himself. He is utterly unconvincing. He comes across as a bit of a lunatic who is even more obsessed than the screenwriter about this case. Sevens year later he turns up at a police station after dark to demand to see their files there and then. He keeps harrassing one of the old detectives who had been in charge of it years earlier. He even doesn't care when his family leave him and he gets anonymous calls every week. I have to say I was hoping Zodiac would come and finish him off just so the movie could end.
Xlisiahal

Xlisiahal

It is hard to tell a story well that has no climax and no cinematic conclusion or resolution. But Fincher excels at that in this movie. The case may have been on the newspaper reports throughout the late 60s and the early 70s, but Fincher's direction adds a new dimension for viewers, the lived experience of anyone living during that time and near those scenes of crime. The movie wonderfully captures the aura of the feeling of dread of the unknown assailant.
Cerekelv

Cerekelv

With those five words and with countless threats and baffling cryptograms, a serial killer terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s. In the thirty-five years since the attacks, the only suspect ever officially named in the case was Arthur Leigh Allen. Yet, recent DNA analysis seems to have eliminated Allen as a suspect. Like Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac's identity remains, to this day ... unknown.

There have been a couple of other films about the Zodiac. But Director David Fincher's thriller is by far the most ambitious and high profile. Based on two books by researcher Robert Graysmith, the film starts off with reenactments of some of the killer's attacks. Most of the film, however, follows three men who were involved in the original investigation: Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), Inspector Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), and reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.).

Procedural in style, the film reminds me of "All The President's Men", with its dogged and maddening investigation by unofficial individuals. Here, Graysmith's obsession with the case matches the obsession of Woodward and Bernstein.

"Zodiac" has a big problem with pacing. Suspense is sporadic at best. Too much dialogue, and unnecessary sequences, especially in the film's middle Act, render considerable boredom. Given the film's length, these talky sequences could easily have been edited out.

The film's production design and overall acting quality are good. I could have wished for more late 60's era music. "The Hurdy Gurdy Man" was good, but not enough. Authentic location shots add credibility to the story as non-fiction. The film's cinematography makes use of the new digital "Viper" camera. As such, "Zodiac" is significant in that it becomes the first major movie to be filmed without conventional videotape or film.

A flabby screenplay interferes with what should have been a riveting thriller. Still, if you are interested in this true life crime case, Fincher's "Zodiac" records the lengthy, and futile, search for the infamous killer who still fascinates us, even after all these years. Unless this case is solved quickly, it will soon become a crime legend of historic proportions, every bit as haunting as the legend of Jack the Ripper.
greed style

greed style

Goddamn this movie is boring!

I watched it today with a couple of friends. OK, we were liking it at the beginning, but the time passed and passed.... 1:40 of movie and my friends weren't even watching anymore. But I decided to watch it 'til the end. I was thinking that it would have a fantastic ending or something, "how could this have 7.8 on IMDb? There should be something."

Well, the whole movie seems to move in circles, leading to nowhere every time, and the worst part is... they lead to nowhere even in the end!

There are some scenes there that made me wonder what the hell were they doing in here! When he thinks he's in the house with the killer, for example.

I like Seven and Fight Club, but this one, just NO.

This movie is big, is boring and leads to nowhere.

THERE ISN'T AN ENDING. Everyone should know that before watch it.
olgasmile

olgasmile

Watching Zodiac is like watching an autopsy. You get to watch the movie dissect the Zodiac case. Parts of evidence are dumped in front of you to look at. The parts pile up as the movie drags on and on and on until you can't stand it anymore. The movie beats any mystery out of the story as it hacks through fact after fact.

After almost three hours the movie stops. The movie doesn't really have an ending, it just stops.

Like an autopsy the dissected parts don't tell even a fraction of the story of a life lived. You will not make any emotional connection to any of the characters.

Save yourself three hours of agonizing boredom. Skip The Zodiac.
Nightscar

Nightscar

This movie is not a thriller. It is not a suspense movie. It doesn't attempt to be a visceral experience.

It tries to be a cerebral dissertation on the inability of man to solve a mystery; of the futile attempt of man to try and understand the world through the collection of facts.

Then it cops out on its premise by presenting to us the probable killer.

Almost 3 hours of a tedious lifeless presentation of evidence & dead ends -- and then the movie sells out its own intentions. If the movie had any guts it would have left the case unsolved. It would not have made this movie watchable but at least you could say that it was uncompromising.
Vobei

Vobei

The story of the Zodiac could have been interesting but this movie proved to be a two hour and forty minute bore-fest. Most of the movie is spent on the investigation as scene after scene piles on pieces of evidence for the characters to ponder. The movie tries (and fails) to show you how the investigation adversely affected the lives of a reporter (played by Robert Downey Jr), a homicide inspector (played by Mark Ruffalo), and a cartoonist (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) – hence the poster's tag line "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer."

The strategy of the movie is this: To show how frustrating and tiresome a murder investigation can be, the movie wants to put you through a frustrating and tiresome experience. To make us feel the way the characters spent long wasted hours sifting through the minutiae of the case in the vain effort to arrest a suspect, the movie puts you through a long 160 minutes of minutiae for you to sift through. The movie worked on me as intended – I was maddeningly frustrated and extremely tired. This is great story-telling? Nope, I'm not buying that pretentious load of baggage.

How did the Zodiac affect the main characters? I wouldn't know. The movie never tries to understand them emotionally or psychologically. The script doesn't give them much to do except sift minutiae and the acting can't seem to rise above the ponderous bleakness stretched across the whole production.

Zodiac is a waste of your time. Wait and see it on late night cable when you need to catch up on some sleep.