Fincher's maturation but ruined by Viper Camera

Rating: 10/10 (15 April 2007)

Years on I am editing this. I was turned off initially by my Zodiac theatrical experience. But I have come back to this film time and time again on DVD and find it to be really masterful, and one of the best things David Fincher has done. But I'll leave my old review below, for posterity.
I will have to split this into two parts because I was conflicted. Honestly, I did love what Fincher was trying to do- make a narrative film that wasn't propelled by gore or special camera tricks, but by story. I loved the acting, particularly Robert Downey Jr, the subtle script developments, the mystery surrounding this case. I was first in line to see it. But I was also the first, I think, to walk out. I couldn't stand Fincher's use of the Thomson Viper cam, and the films I've seen with that camera in general, which include Michael Mann's last two films. I understand the advantages of shooting like this, much more flexibility in low light situations, the ability to basically have a hard drive replace the film reel, keep everything categorized digitally for direct digital transfer for editing, maintaining low costs and so on. But this is David Fincher. And Michael Mann. What on earth are these guys doing cutting costs by sacrificing image quality??? I could understand why someone like Woody Allen might want to make a talkie on the fly like this, but these guys have built careers out of moods defined by their cinematography. The film might have looked good in post, but was decidedly grainy on the big screen. I was sitting in the front row on opening night and I was literally squinting my eyes, simultaneously trying to make out details that would have been directly visible on film, and sheltering them from the oncoming headache created by watching miniature pixels float around in front of me.