Definitely worth another look, especially if you didn't like it the first time around

Rating: 8/10 (27 July 2007)

When Canadian Industrial band Skinny Puppy came out with their first album in 8 years, many fans embraced the music, but just as many seasoned veteran listeners greeted it with scorn. The overall complaint was that the band was merely cashing in on the anti-Bush bandwagon (circa 2004); others posited that it did not sound like the band they'd grown up listening to (circa the '80s and '90s). In other words, the group didn't meet expectations because they did something DIFFERENT, as opposed to what was EXPECTED. My conclusion, which also applies to David Fincher's sweeping epic "Zodiac," is: change is inevitable with the passage of timeif you want "the same old thing," go back and listen to it, or watch it, or whatever.
That being said, my first viewing of "Zodiac" (during its theatrical run) left me feeling almost remarkably disappointed. I had been anticipating the film since I first heard about it (circa 2005), as it was based on one of my favorite true-crime cases, and directed by David Fincher, who had created some of my favorite films. If ever there was an ideal pairing (and Fincher had shown his skill with serial-killer thrillers in the classic "Se7en"), this would be it. Yet as I sat in the theater, I was almost disappointed in Fincher's own self-administered stylistic restraint as the film went off in the direction of a character study mixed with police procedural. I liked it up until about 90 minutes in, and found the remainder of its 158-minute run time to be labored and unengagingright at the point where the tension should have been rebuilding. That, and I found that Mark Ruffalo and Jake Gyllenhaal, two up-and-comers, didn't possess the necessary chops to see the remainder of "Zodiac" through. After a 5 year gap, I was left somewhat bitter at what Fincher had (or hadn't) delivered.
And now that I'm typing up a review, fresh off my second viewing (ah, the wonders of DVD!), I have to say my initial impressions have changed radically. (Of course, part of this is me confessing my own pro-Fincher slant.) There is an interesting generational dynamic at work in the "Zodiac" reviewsmany of the elder critics who rejected Fincher's previous films have showered the heaviest praise on this one. And it is highly likely to alienate the teens and twentysomethings (myself included) who watched "Se7en" at an impressionable age, and celebrate "Fight Club" with near-religious fervor. For Fincher, who has built his career on unusual and unsettling projects, "Zodiac" is really the closest he has come to "normality," despite the subject matter.
I kept thinking that the film would play better on the small screen, and sure enough, it does. Without the distractions often associated with theaters, home viewing becomes "Zodiac"'s most fitting arena, a safe haven to soak up the volumes of detail present within this lengthy mystery. In addition to the near-relaxed style and sepia tones present, the other audience-limiting factor is the convoluted nature of the caseyes, "Zodiac" is a film that demands total concentration on the viewer's part, loaded with dates, places, and characters who pop up sporadically throughout the narrative. Fincher successfully condenses James Vanderbilt's screenplay (based on the book by Robert Graysmith, portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal in the film) into something coherent, but only if you stay on your toes. "Zodiac" is admirably challenging in its effort to turn a mainstream film into a thinking (wo)man's piece.
Fully engaged in the story, it's interesting to see Fincher's stylistic touches channeled in a manner contrary to the visual dazzle he's known for. First is the cast: comprised not of marquee names but real faces, actors like Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal (both usually associated with lighter fare) actually leave fitting impressions in remarkably human roles; ditto Anthony Edwards, Elias Koteas, and Donal Logue as policemen from three different jurisdictions. This lack of bankable names is quite daring, and the performances sell the film. Second: the subtle depiction of obsession present is cleverly displayedin any other film, Graysmith's relationship with his wife (Chloe Sevigny) would have been padded out into a subplot, but Fincher makes it a side note to the Zodiac hunt, thus eliminating potentially melodramatic filler. Similarly, Robert Downey Jr. (as SF Chronicle reporter Paul Avery) has an excellent scene (among many excellent scenes), wherein he tells the invigorated Graysmith to forget about the dormant case, something the audience may be agreeing with at that point. Gyllenhaal, who gives the material his best shot, ultimately keeps us anchored in his Everyman pursuit of truth, to a substantial, satisfying payoff (the film's final scene gave me chills).
Is "Zodiac" the jewel in Fincher's celluloid crown? No. It is, for my taste, a very well-made film that will probably make its way onto my "Best of 2007" list and alienate a lot of the director's cult following. But I'll be the first to admit that stepping back and viewing the film as the logical progression of Fincher's diverse career will make it more satisfying and rewarding. If you were left cold by it before, give it another lookit might just surprise you the second time around.
7.5 out of 10