Immaculate. Uninteresting.

Rating: 5/10 (23 July 2012)

First of all, let's admit that there is nothing wrong with the film. The acting is good, the direction is fine, and you can't really criticise the script - it's a real story and there's not so much they could do to make it more captivating. The only thing I can think of, is that it lasts way too long. And I mean way too long. There is a reason there have been several films with serial killers loosely based on the zodiac killer but this was the first (major anyway) one to deal with the actual case. It's not very good movie material. You have a murderer who commits a few crimes in a 2-3 year span, and then you're left with most of the film, where there is no participation of the killer, no new clues, just the (real story or not, it's the same) cliché of the guy who becomes so involved with the case that he loses touch with his family and blah blah. Fincher focuses on the zodiac investigators not out of choice, but because there is nothing else to do. You can make a fine story without ever revealing the killer, but when you don't reveal (since you don't know) anything about him, I think the reasonable reaction is quite similar to the one of the public towards the actual case: after a while, no one cares. You can appreciate certain parts of the film, there are a few memorable scenes, but it's not one I'd bother watching again.