All the facts are laid out, a straight forward and such a little slow moving account of an infamous crime spree

Rating: 7/10 (6 March 2007)

Zodiac has some great pluses on it's side. As a pseudo-documentary the facts are laid out in plain terms, the storyline and time line are kept in tact and it would feel like nothing is added for dramatic element or to make the film more crowd pleasing and that is definitely okay!! For main stream audiences heading into Zodiac with the thought of this being some sort of action film or even a thriller might find themselves disappointed because this is a very real account of the horrific murders by the still at large Zodiac killer in Sanfrancisco, chronicling from his start in the late 60's right through to almost modern day but mostly ending in the early eighties and how the crimes effected three people in particular some to this day. The cast is well done but ultimately a film like this isn't about the cast and really doesn't give them anything to sink their teeth in because the film is about the killer...Zodiac...hence the name. One of the most beautiful things about the film is it doesn't leave the ending open like I thought it would but rather actually gives an opinion or possible and most likely suspect and how they track him. I mean of course because they are stating their opinion it's going to show the facts weighing in the direction of their suspect and I do encourage anyone after seeing this film to look at other books to see the weight of evidence against their suspect but none the less it made the film much easier to watch knowing there was going to be an outcome.
Jake Gyllenhaal gets the most of the story by portraying cartoonist and eventual Zodiac obsessive researcher Robert Graysmith, the writer whose book the film is based on. My only thought about Gyllenhall is that he looked very young in the sixties and he looked very young in the eighties, they made little attempt if any to make him look older. However his gradual fall into obsession is well documented and intriguing to watch and when he really gets into investigating the case it really does move the film along and his discoveries are downright fascinating. Mark Ruffalo, who I often find a little bland, is actually not bad as Inspector David Toschi who is put in charge of the case. Toschi shows a softer side of obsession, hiding it better, but you can see his intense desire to uncover the truth and you see it more when he unwillingly helps Graysmith. Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal have good chemistry playing off each other and I still think Ruffalo is a little too laid back but he does an okay job. Robert Downey Jr. plays himself...well close anyways...he actually plays crime reporter for the Chronicle Paul Avery who eventually goes on a downward spiral of drugs and alcohol. I don't know if they intend his substance abuse to be a result of the investigation but I never got that. In fact for the most part I got the impression Avery didn't really care all that much about Zodiac but just getting drunk and high and making money. Downey Jr. just seemed like he was having a good time and I didn't think his performance or his role added much to the film. Chloë Sevigny is just kind of there for her role as Gyllenhaal's wife. She never shows all that much emotion or adds anything to the story. Anthony Edwards is decent enough in a small role as Ruffalo's partner Inspector William Armstrong. Cleverly the Zodiac during his murder scenes are actually portrayed by three different actors. This makes everything more interesting because they never look the same and it implies the difference in witness descriptions and that he always claimed he didn't look the same when committing his murders. John Carroll Lynch is quite good in his small role as their number one suspect Arthur Leigh Allen. He fits the profile and is believable as the killer but at the same time believable he might not be.
I might say that part of the problem with Zodiac is the cast but I don't know if it is. I don't think casting anyone else in any other roles would have made any difference because the plot and story is just very analytical. It isn't really about the characters. David Fincher is no amateur to directing. In fact he was the genius behind one of the greatest crime films of all time "Se7en" and also directed the classic action film "Alien." But he left behind that element of science fiction or dark, gritty, fiction and went head over heels straight forward crime documentary and there is nothing wrong with that and I think it will come to be appreciated in the future. The thing was the film felt like it belonged on Television. There was nothing about it that made it Hollywood worth while. It could have aired on The History Channel, or America's Most Wanted as re-enactment or even been a great TV Series but for a movie it kinda misses the mark somewhere. Still worth seeing especially for fans of real crime or history buffs and despite it's huge running time most of it goes by quickly and keeps you interested. 7/10