A good story, but it didn't really work for me

Rating: 6/10 (13 November 2008)

I've come to regard David Fincher as a dynamic filmmaker with slick fast moving films which keep you on the edge of your seat.
I was expecting more of the same with Zodiac last night. I did get one of those qualities. It was certainly fast moving. It spent little time hanging around for us to absorb the vast amounts of evidence and facts that came with the case which led to it being less engaging for me. It dealt with the evidence in too much of a 'matter of fact' manner without concentrating on what it was supposed to do, which is entertain us. I also found that the large time jumps in the case where there were no letters from the Zodiac interrupted the flow of the film. In a well constructed film this should never happen.
It's not all bad. It was an interesting story and certainly had it's tense moments. Perhaps being in America at the time would have helped. Again though, in a well made film this shouldn't matter. For me it erred too much on the style of 'documentary' and didn't have enough character development for me to enjoy it massively as a film. The first 20 minutes (before the huge evidence overload came into play) were exciting and I was thinking it was going to be great.
Unfortunately it didn't keep it up. I suspect it would probably be more enjoyable on a second viewing now that I have got to grips with all the intricate parts of the case, but I just don't know if it's worth it, which is a shame. I wouldn't have associated this film with Fincher at all if I hadn't known