Good as a reconstruction, but not so as a thriller :/

Rating: 7/10 (1 July 2007)

Honestly - I was expecting more. But honestly - I don't know why... :)
This film is good, but I have to say that ... I was bored in the middle of the screening. It reminds me Michael Mann's "The Insider" with Russel Crowe - very good "reportage" thing, but it lacks the suspense in the thriller style. It's nobody's fault, because - in both cases - the screenplay was written by life itself :). And life was writing it quite long time. So, there are mostly only FACTS in the story. With little amount of fiction. And those facts simply lies in history in not very special order - the story of Zodiac simply doesn't have the thriller-like dramaturgy line with rising amount of suspense and terrifying final scene. That is why the film does not thrill as much as "Seven", or Silence of the Lambs". It rather intrigues. Like "The Insider". That's why I was little disappointed. One or two scenes were quite thrilling but that's it.
Another bothering thing, when dealing with FACTS, is that You know from the beginning how the film is gonna end :(.
PROS:
* Great acting - Mark Ruffalo especially, but Robert Downey Jr. is good too (as always)
* interesting as a "reconstruction"
* interesting character transformation of Graysmith (well played by Jake Gyllenhaal - again good acting)
CONS:
* Rather boring in the middle
* lots of unnecessary details (dates and places especially) - I still remember the name Sherwood, but I don't know who it was in the film :)
* not a thriller :)