Meticulously detailed and authentic, but overly boring in some cases

Rating: 8/10 (9 March 2007)

Despite having borrowed it from my friend more than three years ago, I cannot fathom watching more than the first twenty-five minutes of Alien³. Fortunately enough, it is the only film directed by David Fincher that I have yet to watch. The rest of his films I have seen, and really like (other than the not so great Panic Room). So I waited for Zodiac with great anticipation. I held high hopes despite it being delayed, but after watching it, I think it should have been delayed a little longer.
Starting with a hideous murder on July 4, 1969, the film chronicles the mass hysteria caused by a killer who only referred to himself as the Zodiac. He sends a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle listing off details only he would know about the murder. Crime reported Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) begins to follow the case intently, while cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) slowly becomes more obsessed with finding out the truth. At the same time, Inspector Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Inspector William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) are following the case turn by turn.
Fincher's long-awaited return is meticulous in its depiction of 1970's San Francisco. Every setting looks like it was recreated exactly to fit the time period. The newsroom looks like a near recreation of the one in All the President's Men, with all the smoking, lit up telephone lines and typewriters to boot. The attention to even the most minute details is just jarring, but only adds to how authentic the film feels. The film is also fairly homage filled, with one sequence involving a taxi cab looking exactly like the overhead tracking shots in Taxi Driver. The amount of material that Fincher covers in the film is just astonishing. The first hour or so covers almost a year of recreated details, and as the film goes on, it just trucks along with how much time goes by in the case. It was also very interesting to see how some days were covered in the film, frequently having moments spent dwindling on some days, and just blasting through others. It helped to have the little subtitles telling us the time of day and what day it actually was too.
But it is the great attention to detail that also hurts the film. It feels like Fincher did not that with adding so many details, just makes the film's runtime extend out for quite awhile. I did not figure that the 158-minute runtime would be all that bad, but it just feels really stretched out after a while. I really liked all of the little details and quirks he added for all of the characters (including Toschi's adoration for animal crackers) and situations, but a lot of them just unneeded after awhile. It becomes downright boring in some places, and really begs the question of just how much material Fincher originally had covered in the film. It reminded me a lot of Robert De Niro's recent directorial effort The Good Shepherd in many places, with how much detail and material it covered. But at least here a lot of the material is interesting rather than in the former, but the film really struck me as being more like a documentary than like a regular film.
All of the acting is thankfully wonderful. Downey Jr. is pitch perfect as the consistently drunk/high journalist. He brings a lot to the table, and even though he is not in the entire film, his presence is felt throughout. He is spot-on in his acting, and he also brings a much needed humour to the film. Ruffalo is also very good in his role. The slow obsession the character goes through and eventual realizations are all very well depicted, and only continue to show off his true acting chops. I have liked this guy from the start, and he only continues to impress me as he continues acting. Just watching his nervous demeanour during a screening of Dirty Harry is just marvelous in how well he conveys the character's feelings on screen.
Gyllenhaal however, I was a bit on the fence with. I really like him as an actor, but here, his character just does not seem "right". His emotions are great, and so is his acting as per usual, but it just does not seem to be enough for his character. For some reason as the film shifts from focusing on Downey Jr. and Ruffalo to him, it just feels awkward, and is one of the reasons the film feels dragged out. He just does not seem to be able to hold all of the fabric together in a lot of scenes (despite the film being inspired by his real life counterparts books), and as the film spins out of control in how long it goes on for, so too does Gyllenhaal's character. He does great for the most part yes, but he just does hold up well against the other two main actors.
The supporting cast, despite their small amount of time on screen, are all pretty good in their roles. I have not seen Edwards in a long time, but he really impressed me as Toschi's partner. He is clearly overshadowed by Ruffalo, but he does well for himself anyway. Phillip Baker Hall, Brian Cox and Elias Koteas also do very well for themselves. I was a little disappointed with Chloë Sevigny, but only because she is such a great actress, and is so underused here.
On the whole, while it is so truthful and authentic in its depiction of the Zodiac case, it just feels overlong and becomes boring too soon. A little bit more editing and less focus on Gyllenhaal probably would have helped the film greatly. But as it stands, it is a good recreation of the events, and will probably be remembered for just how meticulously detailed it was.
8/10.