not your typical serial killer movie; it's mystery about mystery, and with plot not as paramount as character and mood

Rating: 10/10 (4 March 2007)

David Fincher is back in action after a five year wait that is, at least for me, well worth the gap. Zodiac tests the boundaries of what can really be done in a genre that by now- and ironically by Fincher's own doing with Se7ven being such a huge success- has almost run its course. He reinvigorates it in a very deliberate, powerful manner by making this true story, like JFK, about what it is to investigate, and how investigating something like a murder (or in this case murders) has to be unraveled in a way to get one not even enveloped as to the end result but the process. It's epic length, or at least at 156 minutes really feels epic in scope, and it was the right decision not cut too much more out than Fincher did. But with this time given he is able to pay in many a suspenseful scene, and- to make another famous cinematic comparison- like Lang's M really becomes more fascinated by the process of how to make a criminal investigation a purely cinematic endeavor. It's also one of the year's best films.
One of the things, for example, that had me impressed was the structure, of how plot itself was meant to be intricate and with all of the points of a case made to be important- hence all of the 'two days later' or 'twelve hours later' or 'a year and a half later'. We're getting the bulletin points, sure, but its a specific choice in how to follow the two sides, those at the San Francisco Chronicle (with the primary leads being Jake Gyllenhall's Robert Graysmith and Robert Downey Jr's Paul Avery) and with the police department (Mark Ruffalo's Detective Toschi), and how they interconnect and lead off into making this one big puzzle. It becomes a puzzle to which Graysmith, who ended up writing a book about the murders that never really got a person convicted for the crimes, becomes absorbed to the point of blocking everything else out of his life. This happens actually four years after the last main batch of letters were sent by the zodiac killer to the press, but this too adds to the intrigue and possible futility of Graysmith's personal investigation. He's not a reporter, but it's not about getting the main even exactly caught, but to, as he says, 'look him the guy in the eye'. It goes without saying that everything evidence-wise in the case, of course, is circumstantial.
Aside from being top-notch in the realm of intelligent police procedurals, as well as a story of investigative journalism gone awry, Fincher puts on his a-game visually as well. It might not have the overload of visual tricks and inventive gags that Fight Club had, but within what Fincher needs he makes the picture as strong a directorial feat as he's ever done, maybe even his second best. The control of mis-en-scene is one aspect, and it's appropriate to note the usage of the opening studio logos like the 60s/70s logos, as it sometimes feels like watching one of those movies, while, of course, commenting on them as well (i.e. Dirty Harry movie scene). And also the little shots that stick in your mind, like the aerial view on top of the Golden Gate bridge, or those shots with the zodiac's handwriting super-imposed montage style over the scenes. His control is ever present, but not making it unbearable either; it's all about the story here, and character, and he keeps the darkness in close, precise check, and makes it maybe even more effectively "moody" as a noirish thriller than Se7en.
Now, as for Graysmith, he's the one that ends up bringing out what is for Zodiac that center of making it about the "journey instead of the destination" as the saying goes. That cliché shouldn't be something to snort at, however, as it's a journey where since we already know what will come at the very end suspense has to come out of situations, and out of the finding, losing, and possibly attainable commodity of information. It's almost one big comment on those results-oriented police pictures, and I often felt more gripped and interested in individual scenes, moments. Two of my favorite are when Ruffalo's detective and Koetas's officer interrogate Leigh, where you think you know conventionally 'this is the killer, this is him', but it is not...or is it? Fincher keeps one guessing, as well as in another scene where Graysmith visits the former organ player at the silent theater Rick Marshall, who may or may not be the killer, was the projectionist (when they go into the basement especially is a classically charged scene).
And there are other factors that make it sensational as well. It's another turn by Downey Jr where there's subtleties that only he can bring to a character like the flawed Avary. Gyllenhall's also a perfect choice for Graysmith, where naive ambition and interest get conveyed well early on, and then equally believable as the one-track-minded private investigator who pushes buttons but gets results. And the soundtrack is especially a keeper, with "Hurdy Gurdy Man" used to awesome effect for the opening July 4th scene and in the last scene (it might even send chills down some people's spines). It's never too slick but always an inviting trip, and it questions what it is that a serial killer mystery should be while giving it flair and a personal mark of distinction as a work in and of itself. Who is zodiac? A form of evil, perhaps, and a form of evil that one might just want a glimpse of, if only, as opposed to the whole found and captured result.