User reviews

On July 4, 1969, a killer shoots a couple on lovers' lane in Vallejo, California. The boy survives. The San Francisco Chronicle receives a letter from the Zodiac killer to print his letters with symbols. Reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr) is on the case with the help of eager cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal). The brutal murders continue moving to San Francisco. San Francisco police detectives Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) are given the case. Other police include Jack Mulanax (Elias Koteas) in Vallejo and Detective Ken Narlow (Donal Logue) in Napa. Defense lawyer Melvin Belli (Brian Cox) appearing on TV gets a call from the supposed killer.

This starts off as an interesting serial killer mystery. The attacks are horrifically shown. The couple forced to be tied up and stabbed is probably the most memorable. However the movie turns into something deeper. This is not another serial killer movie like the endless TV shows that populate modern networks. It may not even be about the central characters. This is an immersive experience living with the serial killer always on the mind. The Zodiac killer is just out there in this world. It's fascinating in its dark undertones and the lack of flashiness.

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.

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 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.

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

A couple of years ago, I read an article about how some people are still obsessed with the Zodiac serial killer case. Since the murderer was never apprehended, this case has fascinated a number of people for almost 40 years. There are websites and all kinds of people, apparently, who can't let go of this famous case.

Lo and behold - here's a movie about that obsession. I, probably like a number of viewers, thought this was just another film about the murderer, and it looked that way for the first hour of the 157-minute movie. However, it turns out be just as much a story about one guy who has this obsession about finding the killer. That man is "Robert Graysmith," a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle. He is played by Jake Gyllenhaal. The movie is based on Graysmith's books on the Zodiac killer, so it's no surprise the story winds up revolving around him.

For moviegoers looking for a hard-nosed, brutal serial-killer story, this must have been a disappointing film because it turns out to be a character study of "Graysmith" plus an in- depth behind-the-scenes look at police procedure which, as any cop could tell you, can be tedious work. However, there is still is enough violence and suspense, particularly early on, to satisfy some and there is a lot of information on the crimes itself, and a lot of suspects to entertain the "whodunit" mystery-solving viewer.

I admit the story began to drag a bit after two hours but overall, I thought it was an intelligent, interesting profile of all concerned: most-likely killer, detectives, newsmen, witnesses, other suspects, Graysmith's wife - everyone who could possibly been involved with this long-standing unanswered crime case. In a way, this story reminded me of the CSI shows on TV where every five minutes we get a new can't-miss suspect who turns out to be a false lead. However, in this story, no one was ever tried and convicted. But, the movie does come to a conclusion on who the guilty party was, and makes a convincing case for it.

Thus, at least according to the film, Mr. Graysmith's work was not in vain. (The real-life suspect died of a heart attack, so we may never know for sure.)

The downside for Mr. Graysmith, and people we may not even know about, was that his life and others have been radically altered for the worse this obsession to find the Zodiac killer. It cost Mr. Graysmith his marriage.

Overall, this is a bit long but it features excellent acting by everyone and offers diverse characters. I would like to have seen more with Arthur Allen. John Carroll Lynch is not a big- name actor but he's good and, for obvious reasons, a fascinating person in this story. Director David Fincher doesn't offer up the edge-of-your-seat thrillers as he did in "Se7en" and "Panic Room," but this is still worth a look and recommended.

Disappointing attempt for a great interesting subject. One of the greatest examples of wasted opportunities. A great cast with good dialog but simply too long. The result is a boring film where the director could simply blame editing for being lazy (I would not blame the editor for given up on this one!). Definitely not the same old good guy versus bad guy detective story; and for that perhaps one could try to watch it. I rather see the whole Inspector Clouseau series without any bathroom breaks, including the one with Alan Arkin instead of recommending this one. In sum, if you see it, bring Extra Strenght pills to avoid a Zodiache.

Rotildo (a friend, not an enemy).

Directed by David Fincher this is a deep dive into the events of the still unsolved Zodic murders of the San Francisco Bay area of the late 1960's. The film is long, clocking in at 2 hrs 37 min and stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr. And Mark Ruffalo, all putting in great performances in their respective roles.

I didn't know too much about this case before watching the movie, so was not knowing prior, what would be the outcome. This is a frustrating film... in the sense of it is a film about frustration (as well as incompetence from all involved). Being about true events, of course it's not possible to be suspenseful or shocking in a way that an original screenplay could be. Instead we get a character driven story of this case that shocked and scared America for years. We see incompetence as the police grapple with dealing with victims in various jurisdictions and (by todays eyes), sloppy police and forensics work. And even the serial killer seems erratic and incompetent in his own methods.

But the story is gripping none the less as we see the crimes envelope and and to differing degrees, take over the lives of the key characters involved. This film spans over three decades which are all portrayed beautifully with great set, prop and costume design throughout.

An excellent character movie based on true events. Just don't expect a slasher film. 8/10.

Just really well done: shot in a good-looking and no-nonsense way, strong performances, competent writing. That the events portrayed really happened adds to the suspense; that they happened near where I live makes it feel more significant to me.

I first watched this back when it came out. Being young, I didn't really get it but man it scared the crap out of me. It was my first introduction to this thing called serial killer.

Now rewatching it again in 2022, knowing the killer still hasn't been identified but the hardest code has been cracked after 51 years, I hope one day we will be able to truly know who it is.

Tight storytelling, scary murder scene based on reality. Despite the horrifying nature, David Fincher continued to create masterpieces.

Sometimes getting the best out of a film depends entirely on what setting you watch it in. Sit down on a Friday night with five of your mates after a paintball game, a fridge filled with beer and nine boxes of pizza on the coffee table and it's a dead cert that you will not enjoy Zodiac. It would seem too long, too talk-heavy and too dark and after less than an hour, the DVD would go sailing out of the machine and replaced with Blade 2. However, if you watch it alone at night with nobody else in the house, all the lights turned off and your phone switched off and you'll be in exactly the right place to appreciate it fully. And what an experience it is. Zodiac, while not the greatest film in director David Fincher's back catalogue (this is the man that directed Fight Club after all) is like a twenty-first century version of a classic film noir. The lighting is grim, the story slow paced, the male-centric cast obsessive and paranoid and by the time the deliberately ambiguous ending rolls around, your eyes will be gaping wide and you'll be lucky to sleep for a week.

Based around the true life Zodiac case the film marks Fincher's return to the serial killer genre he previously did so memorably with Seven. No surprise then that there's a fair bit of expectation resting on it and your response to the movie inevitably depends on how familiar you are with his previous work. For one thing, the murders in this movie are not gory set pieces designed to get the blood hounds hot under the collar, but chillingly executed scenes of real-world horror. The pre-credits attack for instance is pure Fincher; awkward sexual tension hanging in the air as a young couple meet up for an illicit affair only to be stalked and set upon by a shadowy assailant who subsequently vanishes into thin air. Later this scene is echoed as a middle aged married couple are viciously slaughtered while lounging by a lake in broad daylight. Both sequences are tense and slow paced and the director's refusal to make them overly melodramatic adds to the sense of genuine brutality.

Furthermore, Zodiac is one of the darkest films released last year and even scenes that take place in daylight have the oppressive feel of shadows moving in. While the investigation into the killer takes up a lot of the running time, the story is mainly focused on how three different lives are affected by the murders. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhall) is a newspaper cartoonist whose natural skill at code breaking and problem solving suckers him in when Zodiac starts sending cryptic messages to the San Francisco Chronicle. Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is one of the paper's most respected journalists who takes a very intense interest in the case. David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) is the chief police inspector hunting the killer. Each one becomes affected in their own way as the story unfolds and before long, their private obsessions see marriages destroyed and careers ended, their day to day actions haunted by a constant sensation of hooded eyes watching their every move.

Naturally, as this is all based on a genuine story there is an added dimension to it and to his eternal credit, Fincher hasn't backed down from his vision in order to please the studios. However, it also means that the killer's identity is never fully revealed, a fact that some will find incredibly brave but others will be frustrated by, especially after the bladder-challenging three hour running time. Of course the director couldn't come out and say clearly who it was but he makes it clear who he believes was responsible and one of the final scenes where Graysmith confronts the suspect with neither man saying more than a few words or indeed, doing anything about it is a classic example of how a few minutes of silence can speak volumes.

Zodiac therefore is a film that rewards patience. It stretches on and on but every second is infused with detail and depth. For anyone with a serious interest in cinema as an art form, this one isn't to be missed but even those of you who are rolling your eyes thinking "pretentious sod" will find much it a rewarding experience, just be sure to book an entire evening off first as this isn't the kind of film you can just put on on a whim.

With "Zodiac," director David Fincher returns to the crime thriller territory he explored to such effectiveness in "Seven" a dozen odd years ago.

For over a decade - from December 1968 to the late 1970's - a serial killer calling himself The Zodiac terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area, dispatching his victims seemingly at random while keeping up a cryptic, cat-and-mouse correspondence with several major newspapers in the area. Despite some impressive leads, the killer was never caught and the murders eventually stopped as quickly and mysteriously as they had started.

At 160 minutes, "Zodiac" lacks the streamlining and telescoping we've come to expect from movies about serial killers, which are more often designed for sensationalism and exploitation than contemplation and reflection. Taking a novelistic approach to the subject, screenwriter James Vanderbilt gives the drama room to breathe, allowing detail to pile upon detail, and providing an array of characters who disappear from the drama for long periods of time only to return to center stage when called upon to do so by the facts of the case.

The drawback in such a strategy is that the movie occasionally feels aimless and formless, as it ricochets back and forth between plot strands and characters that often seem at cross purposes to one another. But the distinct advantage of this approach is that the movie feels less contrived and artificial and more akin to real life, as it captures the sometimes decidedly unglamorous nature and frustratingly plodding pace of actual crime detection. And for those who might be hesitant to watch the film due strictly to its subject matter, it should be noted that, for a movie on such a grisly topic, "Zodiac" is surprisingly tame in the blood-and-guts department (thank goodness).

Indeed, the movie gets its unnerving murder scenes out of the way right up front, so it can turn its full attention to its real areas of interest: chronicling the behind-the-scenes search for the killer and exploring the psychological impact this search has on three men who become, to varying degrees, obsessed with the case. Jake Gyllenhaal, who hit a career high water mark in 2005 with "Proof," "Jarhead" and, of course, "Brokeback Mountain," continues his journey into edgy roles playing Graysmith, the rather nerdy cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle, who managed to get closer to unveiling the true identity of the killer than anyone else, and who went on to write of his experiences in the book, "Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America's Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed," on which the film itself is based. Graysmith was able to scoop even the lead investigator, David Toschi (sharply played by the always interesting Mark Ruffalo), who finds his life becoming ever more overtaken by the case the longer it drags on without resolution. The third major actor in the drama is Paul Avery, the crime beat reporter who turned to drink, thereby torpedoing his own career, after the killer singled him out as a potential target. It is the lack of screen time allotted to Avery that offers one of the genuine disappointments of the movie, especially as he is embodied by the brilliant Robert Downey Jr., whose own life experiences make him the perfect choice for the role.

With its meticulously mounted, pitch-perfect recreation of the details of the case as well as the times in which they took place, "Zodiac" is one of the few films of recent years that can truly be termed a thinking man's thriller.

Only after enduring the 2 hrs and 40 odd minutes director David Fincher took to unravel Zodiac was I able to understand the necessary length. It shared with the audience the feelings of frustration, anticipation, helplessness, fear and need for closure, which does not always happen.

Jake Gyllenhaal turns in another sparkling performance as Robert Graysmith, newspaper cartoonist and later obsessive author of the book on which the movie is based. Mark Ruffalo uglies up his mug to convincingly play David Toschi, one of the inspectors assigned to the case. Robert Downey Jr. is in his element as the charming rogue journalist Paul Avery, who covers the Zodiac killer's beat on the paper. John Carroll Lynch very eerily plays suspected Zodiac killer Arthur Leigh Allen.

Things don't always make sense but that is the ugly, unedited truth of murder of this serial variety, especially seeing it in context, in this age of hi-tech CSI-type shows. This movie shows not only how the deaths affect the victims' families but also how dangerous obsessions on such cases, while not exactly original (Black Dahlia, etc.) can consume even bystanders and those not directly involved.

The Zodiac was a serial killer active in San Francisco during the early 1970's. Unlike others of his kind, the Zodiac loved publicity and courted it religiously. He sent letters and coded messages to newspapers and police. During one killing he wore a complicated hood and cloak costume with his zodiac symbol emblazoned on the front. Another murder was done simply for the press and to tweak the cops. Horribly he got away with all this. The Zodiac killer was never caught. Because of this Zodiac the movie combines a police procedural with a study of the psychological effects the fruitless search had on its participants.

Zodiac tries to concentrates on two individuals, Robert Graysmith, a political cartoonist who becomes obsessed with the killer and David Toschi, one of the cops assigned to the case. To appreciate the psychological toll obsession takes you have to come to know its victims. Despite the movie's long running time we never get that close to Graysmith or Toschi. Part of this is the actors fault. As Graysmith Jake Gyllenhaal is a cipher. He never seems any more than an amiable young man and his inner life remains something to be guessed at. Mark Ruffalo, as Toschi, is a better actor than his compatriot but his part is written as standard TV cop fare. Toschi resembles an amusing Columbo clone rather than a real cop with twenty five years experience. Another hindrance in understanding these two is that we simply don't spend enough time with them. Zodiac must have a hundred speaking roles with an array of secondary characters that easily outshine the leads. Robert Downy plays Roger Avery, a reporter assigned to the Zodiac case, as a smart-alec hipster undone by the '70's drug culture. Brian Cox plays flamboyant criminal lawyer and part time actor Melvin Belli for all the parts worth, which is about every stick of scenery within his reach. As a suspect John Carroll Lynch seems normal but just creepy enough to give one pause. Charles Fleischer outdoes Lynch on the creepy scale as a source who may be more than he seems. These characters flit in an out as the case rises and falls, all drawing attention away from Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo. It becomes increasingly clear is that Zodiac isn't really interested in their characters. The movie would much rather dwell on the search for and identification of the Zodiac Killer.

It is as a police procedural that Zodiac shines. The facts of the case are clearly, almost lovingly delineated. Or, more accurately, Zodiac gives a very complete illusion of delineation. For Zodiac is compelled to give us the killer in a famously unsolved case. Yes, this is the suspect Graysmith and many of those involved with the case truly believe to be the killer and Zodiac is careful to point out the evidence presented is circumstantial. There can be, however, a huge gulf between what a movie pays lip service to and what it implies dramatically.

It must be remembered that Zodiac is based on a book by a man whose psychological health depended on finding the killer. A multi-million dollar movie also has a need for closure. A police procedural needs a conclusion to proceed to. Otherwise you leave your audience frustrated and a frustrated audience is a small, unprofitable audience. Bear that in mind as you watch Zodiac. As informative as the movie is, distrust its conclusions. The real Zodiac was never caught. No one was prosecuted. Everything else is, at best, informed conjecture. Keeps this thought close and you will find Zodiac fine, thought provoking entertainment.

More than a crime thriller, the mature - and no less hypnotic - Zodiac is a film about people who are obsessed. In it, Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback Mountain) plays Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle who, fascinated by puzzles, begins to investigate the mystery of the Zodiac killer on his own. His research leads him to cross paths with the police officers assigned to the case, Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards), and with crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) - each equally determined. To discover the identity of the killer. Graysmith's obsession bore fruit. He believes he has identified the maniac and has written about his experiences in two books, which serve as the basis for the film, Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of Americas Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed.

Thus alternating the role of the film, David Fincher subtly changes the language throughout these acts, making changes in the camera, in the performance of the actors that evolve throughout the narrative, in the lighting and especially in the color palette. In the first act, the protagonist is Paul Averry, a crime reporter from one of the newspapers who receives an enigma and a threat from the Zodiac. Where the pace is slower, with light and yellow tones in the compositions of the scenes. Still in this first act, the characters are presented in their natural environment and how their different personalities will initially deal with the appearance of the serial killer in the city and in the local newspapers.

In the second act, we accompany Dave Toschi, one of the investigators responsible for the case, we accompany him in his searches and in his interviews, so that the plot gains a little more intense rhythm and we are faced with the constant advances and failures of the character. In this act, the colors become darker, although still with traces of yellow, which represent the characters' still hope of solving the case. In the third act, the narrative becomes frenetic, following the stage of madness in which the character Robert Graysmith arrives, where the local newspaper cartoonist, who from the beginning sought to help solve the case, finds himself in a mad obsession with finding out the serial killer's identity, putting it over everything in his life, from his career, to his family. It is at this moment that we are faced with more tense scenes, with the most evident suspense, the desperation of the protagonist and of the public itself in getting answers in an environment in which, more than 10 years after the first crime of the Zodiac, no one is looking to solve the problem anymore. Case. We are then introduced to a more frantic camera, with a blue palette and colors, a colder color compared to the rest of the film, amplifying the atmosphere of fear and tension. It is in this act that we have the most suspenseful scene of the entire narrative, in which the director holds our attention, transports us to the fear and environment of the character, only to be disappointed again and the fear is just an unnecessary illusion, for the murderer was not actually found.

It's scary to think about Zodiac. Not only because we have a frightening story told with absolute mastery, but especially because it is a true account of events never concluded in a concrete way; the Zodiac was never captured, and the police couldn't even identify the definitive suspect behind his letters, having only a few guesses - some stronger than others. For these reasons, watching the film causes great discomfort, knowing that the story we are following does not have an ending, that the Zodiac killer himself could be hiding somewhere; at one point in the film, he even mentions that he would like a good actor to play him in a supposed film adaptation of the events (at the time, Clint Eastwood's first Dirty Harry). That way, it would already be a sinister movie in its own right just by the nature of its events. It's even better when we have a master taking over the ship.

Could be described as a cross between The Silence of the Lambs and All the President's Men, Zodiac benefits from this unusual mix thanks to David Fincher's absolute control. As obsessed with perfection as his protagonist, the director brings a fantastic reconstruction of the period and a fidelity to the most detailed characteristics of the case, from the sketch of the "uniform" of the murderer to the various media events that unfolded during the time, such as the Jim Dunbar's infamous TV show. It is an exquisite work by the entire production and costume design team, which maintains a realistic and at the same time expressionist aesthetic for all visual elements; the "organized" mess of the Chronicle's newsroom reflects the desperation and efforts of journalists, just as a projectionist's basement turns into a real dungeon thanks to our perception and the construction of the atmosphere of the environment.

The approach in Zodiac is very different and this results in David Fincher's most mature film as a director. Fincher uses all his skill to create some of the most impactful moments of his career. The opening scene of the film, with the Zodiac attacking a couple in a car, is exceptional in its ability to slowly build tension: we follow the couple's dialogue as the presence of a stranger following them grows stronger. And its presence becomes noticed by the characters; and the photography work of the late Harris Savides is exquisite in keeping the environment dark enough that we don't see the killer's face, but well lit by the vehicle's headlights and the antagonist's flashlight.

In Zodiac, Fincher makes use of "jump scares" a few times, but the film's intention is not just to give cheap scares. The film instead seeks to make the audience feel the idea of the unknown and the fear it causes, focusing on the premise that any stranger can be the killer. The film has one of the scariest movie scenes of all time and it involves no bloodshed just a dark damp basement, a creepy house and a brilliant casting choice in casting a spectacular Charles Fleischer (the man who made the voiced by Roger Rabbit in 1988) for the scene.

Such ability to chill the viewer remains in the following scenes that reconstruct descriptions and accounts of the Zodiac's attacks. The first one surprises with its astonishing contrast: a couple enjoying a beautiful day at the lake, with a vivid color palette permeated by elements of nature such as flowers, grass and a blue sky... Until we see the Zodiac wearing an exaggeratedly black outfit and mask, giving the visual impression of having a detached element of the scene there, something that exacerbates the cruel act of violence that follows; and the absence of music, replaced by the distant birdsong and sounds of nature, only adds to the tremendous discomfort of the entire sequence. It is a perfect representation of Evil invading a serene environment.

It's something that remains until the rest of the film, but especially during sequences that maintain this discomfort. We have the killer's attack on a woman driving on a highway (the silence and the fact that we never see the killer's face are determining factors) and the murder of a taxi driver, portrayed in a more stylistic way thanks to an elaborate sequence shot that follows the vehicle's path in a sensational plongée plane - and the big shock is that we don't know the killer is there until the moment he fires the gun at the driver. And even scenes without the presence of violence become sinister thanks to this driving, especially the anthological interview of the police with Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch), the strongest suspect of being the murderer, which becomes practically an exercise in investigation; since Fincher frames the faces in central planes that force the viewer to observe every detail of his cold expression during the responses.

The scary scenes in the movie are amazing for the reality involved in them for the way you can feel yourself in situations like these. However, those moments are not all there is to the film, it is a "procedural" investigative film from beginning to end, but it is perhaps the best "procedural" film of all time. This element is something that the film addresses in a fascinating way through all of the interesting personalities we meet throughout the film as it creates this obsession in the viewer to discover the truth in the same way it creates the obsession that destroys the lives of our main characters. Yet we still have that sense of that fear that remains unknown in the shadows, that sense of days passing and the murderer not being discovered, the sense that the murderer is still free to go around and do what he wants. But what is perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the film is how emotional it still manages to be as it never becomes a faraway look at this investigation despite never forcing its hand on emotion. This creates the weight of a series of crimes that go years without having their culprit revealed and how this doubt inflicts suffering for years on many people. All because of a single disturbed man.

Thus, for the breadth and quality of information transmitted, the film can be considered almost perfect, if it weren't for the fact that we are faced with 2 hours and 40 minutes, so the feature can become tiring, but it still manages to hold us. Attention until the last minute, by giving us the illusion that the serial killer will still be found, only to repeatedly disappoint the public, a factor that was mainly responsible for many complaints, but at the same time, kept the story more faithful to the Real facts. Precisely by not bringing what we were eagerly awaiting, David Fincher's sixth film is a true modern classic that is as important as Art as it is for exposing an indecipherable case, Zodiac is one of the golden gems in David Fincher's career.

When Canadian Industrial band Skinny Puppy came out with their first album in 8 years, many fans embraced the music, but just as many seasoned veteran listeners greeted it with scorn. The overall complaint was that the band was merely cashing in on the anti-Bush bandwagon (circa 2004); others posited that it did not sound like the band they'd grown up listening to (circa the '80s and '90s). In other words, the group didn't meet expectations because they did something DIFFERENT, as opposed to what was EXPECTED. My conclusion, which also applies to David Fincher's sweeping epic "Zodiac," is: change is inevitable with the passage of time–if you want "the same old thing," go back and listen to it, or watch it, or whatever.

That being said, my first viewing of "Zodiac" (during its theatrical run) left me feeling almost remarkably disappointed. I had been anticipating the film since I first heard about it (circa 2005), as it was based on one of my favorite true-crime cases, and directed by David Fincher, who had created some of my favorite films. If ever there was an ideal pairing (and Fincher had shown his skill with serial-killer thrillers in the classic "Se7en"), this would be it. Yet as I sat in the theater, I was almost disappointed in Fincher's own self-administered stylistic restraint as the film went off in the direction of a character study mixed with police procedural. I liked it up until about 90 minutes in, and found the remainder of its 158-minute run time to be labored and unengaging–right at the point where the tension should have been rebuilding. That, and I found that Mark Ruffalo and Jake Gyllenhaal, two up-and-comers, didn't possess the necessary chops to see the remainder of "Zodiac" through. After a 5 year gap, I was left somewhat bitter at what Fincher had (or hadn't) delivered.

And now that I'm typing up a review, fresh off my second viewing (ah, the wonders of DVD!), I have to say my initial impressions have changed radically. (Of course, part of this is me confessing my own pro-Fincher slant.) There is an interesting generational dynamic at work in the "Zodiac" reviews–many of the elder critics who rejected Fincher's previous films have showered the heaviest praise on this one. And it is highly likely to alienate the teens and twentysomethings (myself included) who watched "Se7en" at an impressionable age, and celebrate "Fight Club" with near-religious fervor. For Fincher, who has built his career on unusual and unsettling projects, "Zodiac" is really the closest he has come to "normality," despite the subject matter.

I kept thinking that the film would play better on the small screen, and sure enough, it does. Without the distractions often associated with theaters, home viewing becomes "Zodiac"'s most fitting arena, a safe haven to soak up the volumes of detail present within this lengthy mystery. In addition to the near-relaxed style and sepia tones present, the other audience-limiting factor is the convoluted nature of the case–yes, "Zodiac" is a film that demands total concentration on the viewer's part, loaded with dates, places, and characters who pop up sporadically throughout the narrative. Fincher successfully condenses James Vanderbilt's screenplay (based on the book by Robert Graysmith, portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal in the film) into something coherent, but only if you stay on your toes. "Zodiac" is admirably challenging in its effort to turn a mainstream film into a thinking (wo)man's piece.

Fully engaged in the story, it's interesting to see Fincher's stylistic touches channeled in a manner contrary to the visual dazzle he's known for. First is the cast: comprised not of marquee names but real faces, actors like Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal (both usually associated with lighter fare) actually leave fitting impressions in remarkably human roles; ditto Anthony Edwards, Elias Koteas, and Donal Logue as policemen from three different jurisdictions. This lack of bankable names is quite daring, and the performances sell the film. Second: the subtle depiction of obsession present is cleverly displayed–in any other film, Graysmith's relationship with his wife (Chloe Sevigny) would have been padded out into a subplot, but Fincher makes it a side note to the Zodiac hunt, thus eliminating potentially melodramatic filler. Similarly, Robert Downey Jr. (as SF Chronicle reporter Paul Avery) has an excellent scene (among many excellent scenes), wherein he tells the invigorated Graysmith to forget about the dormant case, something the audience may be agreeing with at that point. Gyllenhaal, who gives the material his best shot, ultimately keeps us anchored in his Everyman pursuit of truth, to a substantial, satisfying payoff (the film's final scene gave me chills).

Is "Zodiac" the jewel in Fincher's celluloid crown? No. It is, for my taste, a very well-made film that will probably make its way onto my "Best of 2007" list and alienate a lot of the director's cult following. But I'll be the first to admit that stepping back and viewing the film as the logical progression of Fincher's diverse career will make it more satisfying and rewarding. If you were left cold by it before, give it another look–it might just surprise you the second time around.

7.5 out of 10

I think it would be helpful before viewing this movie to have read Mr. Graysmith's two books chronicling the attempted detection of an allusive almost, at times, invisible sadistic serial killer. Mr. Fincher's intention is to purposely and deliberatley inundate you with facts, figures, and theories to tease the brain and give the audience the exact schizophrenic fact-finding frame of mind the real-life detectives had while tracking the thousands of suspects, the myriad of letters and copycat letters, basically, a forest of information that left them completely confused and bewildered as to detecting the real identity of Zodiac. In Mr. Graysmith's book, he basically leads the reader to believe that all the evidenece combined pinpoints to Arthur Leigh Allen, most of the evidence is circumstantial, but certainly compelling. And if Zodiac didn't kill in obscure jurisdictional boundaries throughout California, maybe the evidence would have been even more certain. I'm suspecting that this move is going to focus and highlight a lot of the mass confusion, paranoia, and anxiety during Zodiac multi-decade reign of terror. What we also have to realize is that this movie is based on real events. This is not a elaborate visual stunning fiction, like Fight Club, Panic Room, The Game, and Se7en, so there is definitely going to be more emphasis on complicated plot lines to capture the effect of the multiple perspectives that plagued the Zodiac hunt. I'll expect multiple plots, sub-plots, and thematic/character complications, not in a bad way, that dazzle the mind and force you to think about this movie as a detective searching for a serial killer might. I expect to become absolutely hypnotized by the plot, and the usual dank dark visuals from Mr. Fincher. Can't wait to see it, going tonight.

"Zodiac" is a terrific film! David Fincher has made his best film until now. A good direction and script. The cast is excellent, mainly Jake Gyllenhaal. Good edition and production design. I think we'll see this film in the next Academy Awards because is the kind of film that the Academy members love: classic, elegant... Although "Zodiac" is filmed in a more classical way, it has the modern touches that made Fincher famous in his previous films. Even its running time is more than 150 minutes doesn't result heavy. At least, in Europe it has been more successful than in the Unites States because we should watch films well made. Don't watch more bad commercial movies. Watch "Zodiac".

Obsessively rating every movie I've watched since 2010 enables me to say that I first saw Zodiac almost exactly 10 years ago, on 8 August 2013. It's not one of my absolute favorites, but it feels worthy of revisiting once a decade; there's a ton to like here, and I was happy to see it continues to hold up well.

Speaking of doing things obsessively, I feel like Zodiac does a great job at capturing paranoia and obsession, and the slow, insidious way a dedication that's too fierce can harm a person's life. I don't remember if I felt this way a decade ago, but watching it now, I think the best parts of this are the scenes that focus on Jake Gyllenhaal's character, with his obsession being central within the final act. Gyllenhaal does this kind of character so well here, even if I think they could have gone a bit further with making him look disheveled towards the end (at one point, he's embarrassed to be seen by another character, implying he's been holed up doing nothing but going over documents, presumably without sleep or showering, but his hair's still quite well-styled).

Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. Are also quite good, but I think Downey Jr. Was a touch too mumbly, with his (now kind of trademark) rapid-fire dialogue being sometimes hard to make out. His snarky character does benefit the movie, though - Zodiac's in no way a comedy, but there's still a surprising amount of humor throughout, and the way everyone talks fast also sometimes gives it the feel of the comedy (though they're usually talking fast about serious things, like murder).

It's paced well and goes by pretty quickly, considering it's about 2.5 hours long. Knowing the outcome of the case also does little to reduce the suspense and intrigue of it all, though to its benefit, the film ends up becoming more interested in the characters dealing with the case, rather than conveniently "solving" it in any way. It's not quite as good as Fincher's previous Se7en, and I might even prefer his Gone Girl adaptation, but Zodiac still scratches the same itch, and scratches it well.

There are open-and-shut murder cases and there are unsolved cases. This is one for the books. Until today, the killer who calls himself the Zodiac hasn't been brought to justice although there is strong evidence who the killer is.

It's always a pleasant experience watching the likes of Robert Downey Jr., Jake Gylllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo display their thespic talent but the story moves forward because of Jake as Robert Graysmith, one-time cartoonist of the San Francisco Chronicle, who becomes obsessed with unmasking the killer. He carries the baton when all those who matter have withdrawn from the race. People like Paul Avery, Bill Armstrong, Davis Toschi, Jake Mulinax and Ken Narlaw.

It might be exhausting for the engrossed viewer to follow the investigation year in, year out without much success.

Dir. David Fincher does an excellent job weaving an engaging (if not longish) film based on a well-written screenplay by James Vanderbilt. As to set design, I particularly liked those big, gas-guzzling cars of the 70s.