Zodiac

*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.

This is a movie about process. It's about what happens when a case goes cold and simple answers don't suffice. It's a risk taken when one does a fictional presentation of an historical event from fairly recent times. You can stick tot he facts or simply make things up. I enjoyed this film because the three principle characters were real and human. All were in over their heads to some extent. Jake Gyllenhaal character makes that sometimes unfortunate serendipitous discovery and becomes obsessed. The police have done what they can, but without passion and this is what Gyllenhaal's character brings to the game. Unfortunately, so much time has passed and so much has gone cold. So everything is based on circumstance. We must content ourselves with what we find and give up on confessions or witnesses. I knew from the start what the case was about and I recommend that those sourpusses that complain about this film do a little reading (maybe one paragraph on Wikipedia which should handle your attention spans) and then decide whether you want to bother with this. Personally, I thought the acting was superb and it painted a picture of the frustration with trying to solve a case with only bits and pieces.

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".

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.

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.