Skip over navigation

Zodiac

Rated - 5 stars

Zodiac

Some murders just won't lie down and die. The man who called himself Zodiac is officially linked to five killings, though in letters to the press he claimed as many as 37. For several years from 1969 he terrorized the San Francisco area, taunting the authorities with frequent cryptic messages that received front-page treatment. Despite this weakness for self-publicity, and despite failing to finish off two of his victims, who were able to describe their ordeal in some detail, the Zodiac continued to elude the police, and eventually the trail went cold.

A fictionalised version of Zodiac emerged in the Hollywood movie Dirty Harry in 1971, under the alias Scorpio - the punk Clint Eastwood blows away at the end. Zodiac himself seems to have been a bit of a movie nut - there is evidence that he took inspiration from the 1932 movie The Most Dangerous Game (which is man). And Detective Dave Toschi, the prime investigator on the case, was famous for having shown Steve McQueen the ropes when they made Bullitt. There have been a couple of low budget exploitation efforts, but mostly the movies have shied away from this case, presumably because it's so complex and open ended.

It makes sense that the notoriously fastidious David Fincher should take up this challenge - Zodiac is his kind of psychopath. Seven imagined an insolently cerebral serial killer outsmarting the cops to the very end. Both The Game and Fight Club are constructed as puzzles; they're morbid jokes at our expense. And in the five years since Panic Room he came closest to committing to The Black Dahlia, another real life unsolved murder mystery. Even the relatively anonymous Panic Room seems to have appealed to him as a technical challenge, a trick to be worked out.

Much less in-your-face than Fincher's previous movies, this is a long, meticulous film (2 hrs 36 minutes - cut down from a four hour first cut, DVD fans!) and Fincher lays out every facet of the case in methodical detail, beginning with the second (or is it the third?) crime scene, July 4, 1969, and then rifling through the weeks, months and years - all of it scrupulously fact-checked. In the past Fincher has poured on the atmospherics and ramped up the shock value, but his work here speaks of the utmost concentration, patience and restraint. It is easily his most mature and coherent picture.

Zodiac

Shot in High Definition by DP Harris Savides (Elephant), Zodiac is both matter of fact and strangely elusive. For all that much of it takes place under fluorescent office lights, cutting between parallel investigations led by Inspectors Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and crime beat reporter Paul Avery (an engagingly dissolute Robert Downey Jr), the prevailing mood is an altogether hazier, amber nocturne, the darkness on the edge of town - and the edge of reason too.

Toschi is listed among the movie�s credited consultants along with several witnesses, experts, and private detectives. But Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt take their cue from two true-crime books by Robert Graysmith (played here by Jake Gyllenhaal), a former cartoonist on the San Francisco Chronicle and a friend of Avery's who becomes obsessed with the case. While Toschi, Armstrong and Avery are overwhelmed and ultimately defeated by its myriad imponderables, Graysmith can't let go. Eventually he zeroes in on a prime suspect, convicted pedophile Arthur Lee Allen (now deceased).

In reality, Graysmith and Detective Toschi are both convinced Allen is their guy, and the film comes close to endorsing that opinion - only to throw further doubt on the fire at the fade out. I bet Fincher would have loved to have solved this crime for himself, but in the end he couldn't ignore the fact that no hard evidence definitively proved Allen's guilt, and it's pretty clear that the obsessive Graysmith abandoned his objectivity years ago - maybe around the time his wife left him in disgust.

Zodiac

Zodiac is a fascinating procedural precisely because Fincher leaves room for doubt. He's at least as interested in how not knowing drives and cripples these men as he is in establishing definitive guilt. You come away from the movie semi-convinced that Arthur Lee Allen got away with murder, but with the gnawing feeling that no jury would have been able to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tom Charity
tom.charity@lovefilm.com

View Details

More information about Zodiac »

Members' Reviews

Reviews Voted Most Helpful

Rated - 5 starsZodiac

Latka from Swansea , 07/06/2007

David Fincher retreads the serial killer genre with his latest offering Zodiac. Following the true-life case of the killings in the San Francisco area in the late 60's and 70's, Zodiac is not your usual true crime film.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle, who becomes obsessed with discovering the identity of the killer who has labelled themself 'ZODIAC'. When the killer begins sending letters to the newspaper, Graysmith takes an active interest in the case. But this is not just Graysmith's story, it is also the story of crime reporter Paul Avery (portrayed superbly by Robert Downey Jr) and lead police officer David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo in his best performance to date). You get to see how the crimes affect the three and how their lives were changed because of the killings and subsequent hunt for the killer.

The supporting cast is a who's who of acting pedigree, from Brian Cox's lawyer to Philip Baker Hall as a document's expert.

Many true crime films rely on heavy violence to tell the story, Zodiac does not. Whilst you see some of the murders, they are never portrayed in a gratuitous or exploitative way. The focus on the film being on the obsession of the main characters rather than the sensationalism of the crimes.

Even though the film has a running time of 158 minutes, the pacing of the film means that you never get bored. It is so tightly edited that not a moment of screen time is wasted. Added to that, you have a constant undercurrent of suspense that puts many modern horror films to shame. There are some scary moments, and none more than the fact that this is a true story.

Fincher is a master of visual style and this film is no different. The film looks like a seventies film (even down to classic 70's Warner and Paramount logos at the start).

The film also stays true to the source material, Graysmith's book 'Zodiac', and does not veer off into any moments of dramatic license. It is fact based, and because of this engages the audience more.

This is my film of the year so far. It is thought provoking and so well made it should be a blue print for how true crime films should be made. Great performances by all involved and the attention to detail is amazing (even down to radio adverts for the Rolling Stones' Altamont gig).

The film is up there with the best of true crime films, such as The Boston Strangler and To Catch A Killer. This is David Fincher, and his cast, on top form.

  124 out of 130 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 2 starsZodiac

SAI81 from Tonbridge [Highly rated reviewer] , 20/05/2007

Almost 40 years since his crimes the Zodiac case remains open, one of America's most infamous unsolved murder cases. This film is based on the book by Robert Graysmith (Gyllenhaal) documenting both the police investigation and Graysmith's own inquiries into the case and laying out the case against the man he suspects of the killings. This is fantastic material for a movie and particularly for David Fincher, whose previous vernture in the serial killer/police procedural genre was Se7en.

Where, then, has it all gone so very wrong?

The problems are legion but perhaps the biggest is that David Fincher appears not to have made one film. He's made two and slapped them rather awkwardly together. The first film is about the Zodiac killings and the Police investigation. The hero is Mark Ruffalo's Detective Toschi and on the periphery hang Robert Downey Jr as a crime reporter and Gyllenhaal as Graysmith. Gyllenhaal has nothing to do for almost two hours besides hover over Downey's desk. Then comes film two in which Gyllenhaal takes over hero duties as Graysmith mounts his investigation years after the killings.

There's an awkwardness to the whole film. Characters drift in and out (for an hour in the middle you may forget that Gyllenhaal is in the movie) and some (Chloe Sevigny) could be lifted out of the film entirely without trouble. Nobody has an arc so there's no real investment in the characters. With this comes another big problem; because I don't really care about these people it's also hard to care about the events they are investigating. There's little tension here and certainly not the ever present foreboding that you feel in Se7en.

Even at almost three hours Zodiac has odd things missing, particularly criminal is that Fincher neglects to show us Graysmith cracking Zodiac's second code, despite the fact one of the few things we really get to know about him is how much he loves solving puzzles.

I can't really fault the acting. Downey is on excellent twitchy form and Anthony Edwards is great in a supporting role and Fincher's direction is as technically brilliant as ever. It's just that the film is a mess. It as if Fincher couldn't find his focus so he simply threw in everything and the kitchen sink. A horrible let down.

  68 out of 82 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 4 starsGood true life crime thriller...

PaulaWestwood from Ashton-Under-Lyne [Highly rated reviewer] , 19/05/2007

This is issed remarkably close to the previous film 'Zodiac' released in 2005, the 2005 version is quite good, and is packaged very similarly and deals with preciserly the same subject , that is where the similarities end.

At 2 hours 40 minutes the new film is a bum number, but even though it seems overlong, it certainly grips you into watching and maintains your interest throughout.

The main bonus for me was the performance of Robert Downey Jr as the maveric reporter Paul Avery, it was very watchable indeed.

I would definately say, if you have the time on your hands, this is a definate recommended movie that ties up some loose ends from the 2005 version. Well worth a watch.

  36 out of 40 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 4 starsVery Good

A customer from Aberdeen, Scotland , 24/05/2007

This film focusses on the 'Zodiac' serial killer. Or rather it focusses on the people trying to solve his crimes and identify him.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable film, and I recommend watching it. It's a thriller most definitly, but with a more interesting and detailed story than I've seen in a thriller for a long time.

  23 out of 24 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Most Recent Reviews

Rated - 2 starsSlow ...

A customer from Norwich , 22/02/2008

This was a long film that didn't move as quickly as I wanted it to. I found it hard to understand the words - fast and heavily accented (particularly the policemen). The plot, based on real case studies, was interesting. It made me think how important it is to have communication between legal/social departments (particularly brought to mind the recent Child Protection cases that have been in the news over the last 5 years). This film shows how bureaucracy and local politics can get in the way. It's an important issue, but the film delivers it in a slow and clunky way. This may be the reality, but it doesn't make a very interesting film.

  4 out of 4 people found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews

Rated - 4 starsGood true life crime thriller...

PaulaWestwood from Ashton-Under-Lyne [Highly rated reviewer] , 19/05/2007

This is issed remarkably close to the previous film 'Zodiac' released in 2005, the 2005 version is quite good, and is packaged very similarly and deals with preciserly the same subject , that is where the similarities end.

At 2 hours 40 minutes the new film is a bum number, but even though it seems overlong, it certainly grips you into watching and maintains your interest throughout.

The main bonus for me was the performance of Robert Downey Jr as the maveric reporter Paul Avery, it was very watchable indeed.

I would definately say, if you have the time on your hands, this is a definate recommended movie that ties up some loose ends from the 2005 version. Well worth a watch.

  36 out of 40 people found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews