Review: Zodiac

[the_sneaker]

Zodiac 4 out of 5
Directed by David Fincher
Written by James Vanderbilt
Based on the novels by Robert Graysmith

Starring:

Jake Gyllenhaal as Robert Graysmith
Robert Downey, Jr. as Paul Avery
Mark Ruffalo as Inspector David Toschi
Anthony Edwards as Inspector William Armstrong
John Carroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Allen



Robert Graysmith (Gyllenhaal) was just a cartoonist. Paul Avery (Downey, Jr.) was just a reporter. David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) was just a police inspector. They did their jobs, their day-to-day lives without many problems. They all lived in their own worlds, their secure worlds, and did not have much to object about. Avery enjoyed drinks at the bar with his bosses and coworkers while sometimes covering the news (or throwing his own spin on it). Toschi solved the crimes of San Fransisco and enjoyed his insatiable craving for animal crackers. Graysmith went about invisible at the San Fransisco Chronicle, ignored by the "real" employees because of his status as just a cartoonist. All that began to change, however, in the Summer of 1969 when two young lovers were brutally shot in Vallejo by a man who would soon coin himself as the 'Zodiac.' The obsession of catching the murderer, or the disgust caused by his crimes, would drive the cop, the simple reporter, and the invisible cartoonist down a path that few would want to travel for nearly 22 years.

David Fincher, of Fight Club and Se7en fame, always manages to land the perfect story to use as his next great thriller. Alongside of that, he gets the opportunity to work with some of the finest actors in our generation, many of whom have either won an Oscar, or have been nominated. Zodiac is no different. Fincher starts the story right off the bat with the murder and attempted murder of the Zodiac's first two victims, David Arthur Faraday, 17, and Betty Lou Jensen, 16. For the next 2 and a half hours, it is a spiraling ride down into the world of murder, obsession, and the ugly side of the world that people seem to shy away from.

Fincher is in fine form, as usual, mixing his unique ability to capture the smallest of emotions of his actors, to choreographing some of the coolest shots using both CGI and real life images. Much like the great opening scene in Fight Club, Fincher blends the use of his camera and the power of a computer to make some very compelling and awesome shots, for example the quick ten second shot of the entire construction of the Transamerica Tower. But do not think that this is the only high point of Zodiac.

Gyllenhaal, Downey, Jr, and Ruffalo (or "The Three" as I will refer to them) jumped so deep into their roles that it was hard to separate the actors from the people they were portraying, most notably Mark Ruffalo. A local reviewer here in Arizona called him a chameleon, being able to literally become the character, while most actors simply portray the character. This is the best way to describe Ruffalo, who has played so many different characters in the past 4 years it is hard to believe he can do such a great job. For instance, he played the quirky yet nerdy Stan in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the bad ass yet incredibly Hispanic looking Detective Fanning in Collateral (who I did not realize was in fact Ruffalo until I saw the end credits), and a few typical male characters in romantic comedies. That is what is so great about Ruffalo. He is the character he is portraying.

Robert Downey, Jr., is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. It seems to me that after he got over his drug problems and started taking on more interesting roles, his career became hotter than ever before. Downey has been in some of my favorite movies in the past seven years (Wonder Boys, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Good Night, and Good Luck, and A Scanner Darkly). His style is very subtle and dry, yet he is such an engaging presence on the screen and his wit is so sharp that I honestly would watch any movie with Robert Downey, Jr., in it and probably enjoy it. His portrayal of the drug/alcohol addicted Paul Avery would have been funny if you did not feel so bad for the guy after he looses his job.

And we cannot forget Jake Gyllenhaal! Gyllenhaal has a different style completely different than the others. Jake has this natural innocence that caught my attention when I first saw him in October Sky and has used that innocence to make the audience feel more connected with whatever character he was playing, even the infamous Donnie Darko. With his boyish face and good looks, he can pull of playing just about any type of character and it was really refreshing to see him change so much over the course of the film. In the beginning, he was the quiet book worm who kept to himself. By the end of the film, he was so obsessed with the idea of just finding out who Zodiac was (not necessarily catching him, just solving the ultimate puzzle) that he had neglected everything and everyone in his life to find all the answers to write his book.

All-in-all, Zodiac is a fantastic film. So far, it is one of the best so far of this year, and I think it will be hard pressed to be forgotten. In what could have easily been a boring adaptation turned into an incredibly tense yet sometimes funny biography of all the people who were so affected by this madman, and had never even met him. We all know the ending basically. The Zodiac Killer was never caught. Some might look at this and wonder what the point of seeing the movie is then, but you have to realize that the purpose behind Zodiac is not purely a detective story where we find out who the killer is and how he did it (like C.S.I. or Law & Order), but it also a very engaging character study about how, like the tag line says, 'there's more than one way to lose your life to a killer.'

It does run pretty long (158 minutes) but you hardly notice the time go by. If you are a fan of Fincher's work, and love to be sucked into films that will drain you emotionally, then by all means, go and see Zodiac. You will not be disappointed.

[abeceda]

My friend write this review. I think that review is good

What you think ?

---------------

Based on the true story of one of the most intriguing unsolved crimes, ‘Zodiac’ is a thriller from David Fincher, director of ‘Se7en’ and ‘Fight Club’. We already knew David Fincher could craft the perfecZodiac - letter with a ciphert serial killer movie.

Fincher and the screenwriter were smart in choosing not to distort the Zodiac story to adapt it a similar style as ‘Se7en’, instead they followed the true story right to the very end.

For decades the Zodiac killer terrorized the citizens of the San Francisco Bay area. Californians were not safe from this man who claimed he killed dozens of victims, however to this day it has never been verified that one person killed all those people.

SFPD Homicide Inspectors Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) were the officers assigned to the case. However the murders occurred over a wide area, and as the two tried to do their work they came across the dilemma of dealing with multiple police organizations.
....................

[echo_bravo]

Great review sneaker. Glad you liked the film.

[fooknasty]

A beautifully shot movie that keeps your interest through old fashioned tension and not shock value.

9/10

[PreySlayDisplay]

Great movie. I've been meaning to pick up two disc director's cut after deciding NOT to let Hollywood rip me off by buying the same movie twice. Screw "vanilla" versions of DVD's. That shit pisses me off.

[DaMovieMan]

A bit of an informal review:

I was extremely disappointed in this one. I didn't see it for so long, I heard mixed things, then finally got around to watching it after wanting to for a long time and...wow, it could of been so much better. I'll talk about the things I liked first before I get into the problems I had with it. I definitely liked the way the film transported me to San Francisco 60s, with the music and the style of dress. The acting of the main three, Downey Jr., Gylenhall and Ruffalo (in that order) was excellent and the supporting cast which was full of talent was also great to watch. Fincher didn't lose his touch when it comes to fluid camera movement and original sequences, like the one when the letters and newspaper columns blend in with the background (a la the Fight Club sequence when Norton is IKEA shopping). Use of music, both original scoring and old songs from various artists was very impressive. But that's where the tide starts to turn and the problems come pouring in.
The main problem with this film is that it's excruciatingly long for a story about a killer that's never caught. It doesn't sound long at 2 and 1/2 hours, but it feels longer than Lawrence of Arabia because (and here's the second major problem) the script is jam-packed and overflowing with dialogue. I can't remember when I've seen a more talkier movie, Fincher's pace with the dialogue seems to never stop through-out with only a chance for very short breathers (more on the breathers later), making you have that feeling of eating way too fast and not being able to digest. You bring in such a latently full script with dialogue and stretch it two and half hours and you've mixed the two worst possible combinations. Cinema tells its story best through images, and Fincher used to that so well, but this movie relies way to much on dialogue, way to much to a point of becoming annoying. On the note of not using images, oh my god I can't believe none of you mentioned this so far but what the HELL was up with the use of time shifting in almost every scene? 5 hours later, 12 hours later, 18 hours later, 3 1/2 days later, 6 months later, a year later, a day later and on and on and on, it was painful to watch and irritating enough not to be able to ignore. Fincher is going for realism here? Please, the audience isn't stupid enough to know that it takes some hours for information to circulate (specifically thinking in the beginning when they get the first Zodiac letter, scene after scene there is a caption of how many hours passed...pointless) or that it would take a day for cops to interogate someone after catching a plane ride and so many other instances within this 2 1/2 hour run that at the end you just laugh when it starts to leap decades. I would understand if he used them sparingly to show that years passed because time is obviously important for this movie but he went borderline insane with the use of time-shift captions and it deteriorates the quality of the film and its seriousness.
About the breathers I mentioned that you don't get enough of, the CGI was blatantly obvious (unlike Fight Club where it actually really looked good and even stylistically ties in with the film's themes), I don't understand why he didn't use a few simple crane shots for some of those sequences (the cab ride for example) if he was going for realism (!?) he failed in that department. Nevertheless, I was at least happy that I was watching a scene where a character was not talking. Jesus.
Finally, and what all those negatives finally boil down to, is the feeling of pointlessness after finally coming to an end. Three lives of a detective, cartoonist and reporter get destroyed. I think destroyed could only apply to Paul Avary who was killing himself slowly anyway, but the other two are still alive and going about their lives, they have families and they have jobs. They might be haunted by the unsolvable mess the case turned into but that is such old news that I can't believe it's the purpose of this film. Investigators who lose their mind over an unsolvable case. YAWWWNNNN. We weren't even that privy to the lives of these people we're supposed to care about in order to really feel their pain, what the hell do we know about Ruffalo's detective's personal life apart from the fact that he has three daughters, a wife and likes crackers? Nothing. What do we know about Gylenhall's personal life apart from the fact that he likes to read, likes puzzles, and has three kids? Nothing. We know most about Paul Avary (his character and Robert Downey Jr.'s personification of him is really the highlight of this whole film...and he's not in it for more than half of the running time!!!!!).
A film that had so much potential and started off so well turned into a complete mess that questions Fincher's motives for doing this film in this way. Shed a good hour off the film, try to have a couple of scenes without so much support from dialogue and for god's sake get rid of 80% of those captions that denote time and you get yourself a watchable film about a true story of a frustrating case. Instead, we get a serial killer movie where the murders that are shown take up about 5 minutes of screen-time and where the killer himself is just an ordinary loser who wanted attention and finally didn't even kill that many people to warrant the 22 years spent in trying to find him. What a bloody shame, I'm so happy I didn't see this film in theaters (saw it on a projector so it felt like a mini-cinema) and I am extremely dissapointed in Fincher making me suspect the upcoming The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Compared to the rest:

Fight Club - 9/10
Se7en - 9/10
The Game - 8/10
Panic Room - 7/10
Zodiac - 4/10

[DaFuNk44]

ZODIAC (2007)
Rating: 7/10

The Plot: A serial killer terrifies the San Francisco Bay Area and taunts police with his ciphers and letters. Investigators search for the murderer as the case becomes an obsession for four men as their lives and careers are built and destroyed by the endless trail of clues.

The Good: The movie spans over 30 years, and througout that time of the investigation of the Zodiac killer, a lot of information is given, and a lot of characters come and go. Fincher does a great job of managing the whole thing, while maintaining a tight and steady pace. It is safe to say that the movie really grabs hold of you from the beginning, and keeps you guessing the whole time! The acting and directing is top notch, and the look and moodiness of it all adds to the fun!

The Bad: The movie is a bit long, with lots of scenes that seem to repeat themselves, for instance revisiting old leads and yapping about tiny details that never amount to much, and in the end, while it was well done, I didn't feel excited or all that pleased with the pay-off.

The Bottom Line: A very good movie with a lot of eeriness, some suspense and a plethera of great acting! This is a murder mystery that is smart, and even though the runtime is long and the ending leaves a lot to be desired, you are happy for having witnessed it!

[joeyatog]

I actually liked Zodiac a lot. I am normally not a huge fan of Fincher's work either. It didn't seem too long to me and the characters are real interesting. I'd probably give it a 7/10 or 7.5/10.

[miamita]

Even though the film is only 35% accurate I still very much enjoyed it. However if they ever do another Zodiac movie I hope they stay away from the suspect Arthur Lee Allen since he has been proven by DNA not to be him.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by miamita

Even though the film is only 35% accurate

How did you narrow it down to that percentage?

[poopontheshoes7]

9/10

A near masterpiece.

[miamita]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

How did you narrow it down to that percentage?

Zodiackiller.com has it and Fincher even used that website for some of his research.

[Zizou]

Originally Posted by miamita

However if they ever do another Zodiac movie I hope they stay away from the suspect Arthur Lee Allen since he has been proven by DNA not to be him.

Ever heard of misleading a police enquiry? just because dna doesn't match doesn't mean he definitely isn't Zodiac.

There are other possibilities:

(1) A.L.A planted another person's DNA on some of the crime scenes. This was a very intelligent man we're talking about, and these crimes were likely a game to him. By giving clues and dna which lead the investigation away from himself, he would have benefited from such misdirection. The DNA could have come from one of the many alleged victims who's bodies' have never be found.

(2) The Zodiac wasn't necessarily one person. Perhaps someone like Jack Tarrance was working with ALA. While the police got it in their mind they were looking for one person their whole investigation was undermined (aside from poor police work) because they found more than one person who fits parts of the criminal's identity, but no one person who fits it all.

(3) The Zodiac may have taken credit for other people's crimes. ALA could have been behind some of the murders, but not working with Zodiac. Zodiac took credit to work as misdirection, making police work harder.

(4) or perhaps ALA had nothing to do with it.

[miamita]

You have to remember back then there wasn't advanced DNA testing and they got the DNA off of a stamp. So no it couldn't be from a past victim.

The whole Jack Tarrance as a suspect I think has been overblown for people who have read about this case and their suspects. Did you know Jack Tarrance's step son who is the one behind all this tried to sell a peice of cloth from one of the victims a few years ago? Yes that is right he tried to sell a "supposed" peice of evidence instead of going to the police. The step son is in it for the fame, but the Government does have to look at every amount of evidence.

I don't think ALA could be the Zodiac killer and I will tell you my honest reason. ALA was a pedo who would more then likely gone after children and not adults if he were to become a murderer. Had DNA been around back then like it was now I doubt we would even know who this guy was.

Here are some good resources if you are interested in more about the case as well as Graysmith

http://http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/graysmith6.htm

http://www.zodiackiller.com/discus/m...rd-topics.html

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/myths.htm

[Zizou]

Originally Posted by miamita

You have to remember back then there wasn't advanced DNA testing and they got the DNA off of a stamp. So no it couldn't be from a past victim.

How did you jump to that conclusion? I think it would have been very easy to use the DNA of someone he had killed, or forced them at gunpoint to comply. Same goes for handwriting and the phone call to the news, he could have forced someone at gunpoint to comply.

The whole Jack Tarrance as a suspect I think has been overblown for people who have read about this case and their suspects. Did you know Jack Tarrance's step son who is the one behind all this tried to sell a peice of cloth from one of the victims a few years ago? Yes that is right he tried to sell a "supposed" peice of evidence instead of going to the police. The step son is in it for the fame, but the Government does have to look at every amount of evidence.

I mentioned Tarrance as an example, the point being that there could easily have been more than one person behind the Zodiac killings. As for the legitimacy of Tarrance's connection with the case, the FBI are looking into it and comparing it to their profile of the killer. We'll have to wait and see how that works out.

I don't think ALA could be the Zodiac killer and I will tell you my honest reason. ALA was a pedo who would more then likely gone after children and not adults if he were to become a murderer. Had DNA been around back then like it was now I doubt we would even know who this guy was.

I'm not sure if the murders had any sexual implications, they seemed more about hunting and the killer's thrill of it. ALA's history of child molestation does play an interesting role in the case, you'd think if he were the Zodiac and so easily avoided police that he wouldn't have been caught so easily on child molestation charges. Who knows, maybe children were his weakness, and he wasn't in the frame of mind to be methodical.

[miamita]

Originally Posted by Zizou

How did you jump to that conclusion? I think it would have been very easy to use the DNA of someone he had killed, or forced them at gunpoint to comply. Same goes for handwriting and the phone call to the news, he could have forced someone at gunpoint to comply.

I mentioned Tarrance as an example, the point being that there could easily have been more than one person behind the Zodiac killings. As for the legitimacy of Tarrance's connection with the case, the FBI are looking into it and comparing it to their profile of the killer. We'll have to wait and see how that works out.

I'm not sure if the murders had any sexual implications, they seemed more about hunting and the killer's thrill of it. ALA's history of child molestation does play an interesting role in the case, you'd think if he were the Zodiac and so easily avoided police that he wouldn't have been caught so easily on child molestation charges. Who knows, maybe children were his weakness, and he wasn't in the frame of mind to be methodical.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. They got the DNA off of a stamp he licked that he sent that was verified to be his in 2002. Their was speculation as to whether or not he had someone else lick it so in 2003 they got another sample from Don Cheney and those results were negative. Like I said had advance DNA testing been around we wouldn't even know who this guy was.

Yes I know the FBI is looking into it but when you stack of the evidence against him and who the guy was who started this whole thing (his step son) and you learn about who he is from the links I gave you, you will see the guy is a nut case.

[FilmJunkie1114]

Terrific film; I like how it is constructed in a very documentary-style fashion. It felt very photo-realistic, and the film still maintained that sinister Fincher feel. And once again Downey Jr. steals the show; I know he's Hollywood MVP now, but he had shined for countless years before then, and it is good to see that people are going to his previous performances like this one and seeing this is the case.

9/10

[miamita]

Yeah I thought Downey was good as well. However his character was the farthest from the truth out of all of them as his character and Graysmith never really talked to each other while working at the newspaper. Everyone was great though and I don't think I could just pick just one actors performance out of everyone. It was weird seeing Drew Carey's brother from his show playing ALA lol. I think my favorite actor was Mark Ruffalo as David Toschi.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I really liked this one! Each actor fit their roles perfectly, and Fincher's directing is a force to be reckonned with. (I've always wanted to type that. )
Did anyone else notice all the low-grade Zodiac rip-off std's that came out after this. At one point in time, they were like Hollywood Video's herpes it was so infected with them.

[miamita]

I wouldn't say the Zodiac movies were rip off's as there have been plenty of Zodiac movies in the past and will be in the future. There were 3 Zodiac films made before Fincher's Zodiac from 2000. Graysmith is only one of the authors who covered this story and created theories as to who he thought was the zodiac. To me Zodiac was outdated as to far as who the suspects were and was a movie based on the actual case with a lot of inaccuracies since it has been common knowledge since '02/'03 that ALA wasn't the Zodiac with a very small slim chance he actually is or had a connection to the case. With the recent events over this past year I wouldn't be suprised to see another main stream Zodiac movie made in in 2010's getting away from the ALA mytho.

[jbar1026]

i didnt care for it. not a bad movie just wasnt my thing 7/10