Magnificent!

Rating: 9/10 (1 July 2009)

With the release of "Zodiac", David Fincher's second foray into serial killer territory after the magnificent "Seven", many eagerly attempted to compare the two, but in reality, they are very different beasts. "Seven" was a deeply claustrophobic movie, set in dark buildings under a perpetual night, offering only the limited perspective of the detectives as they tried to solve a horrific series of crimes over a very short period of time, whereas "Zodiac" is almost the opposite, appearing undeniably agoraphobic, a sprawling and almost holistic view of an unsolved crime encompassing a massive timescale, a large cast of central characters and a much more complex and Byzantine plot, encompassing not only the case, but the context and culture in which it occurred.
The storyline is, on paper, deceptively simple. A serial killer with a penchant for sending codes and clues to the authorities is at work in 70s San Francisco, while the cops and a group of journalists from the Chronicle (who each received his letters) try to uncover his identity. When the search is fruitless and the murders stop, the cops give up the case, while crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr), by now an alcoholic obsessive, is fired from the Chronicle. So far, so historical.
However, most of the film takes place in the decade following this as Avery's friend Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), the Chronicle's cartoonist, cracks the cypher and begins his own investigation to find Zodiac's identity and finally lay the case to rest. It is here that the film spirals into a complex tapestry of red herrings, conjecture and clues as we follow his obsessive and at times haphazard search for the killer that keeps turning up results, but is ultimately far from conclusive. Suspects that seem almost certain to be the killer are discounted whereas others are accused based on a hunch until we reach a point where the plausible and the tenuous become blurred and we are never entirely sure what is true and what is mere paranoia. In some ways, the structure and scope of the film resembles Stone's "JFK" (though obviously less polemical) throwing lots of theories at the screen but not conforming to a single one.
Visually, the film is stunning, evoking not only an effective representation of a particular place in a particular time ('70s San Francisco) but also many of the classic thrillers of this period such as "Klute", "All the President's Men" and, particularly, "Dirty Harry", a film that was inspired by the Zodiac killings and one which is explicitly referenced in one scene. There is also a certain amount of realism to the proceedings, murders as likely to happen at a daylight picnic on a beautiful day as in the more traditional locale of lovers' lane, and as much attention is paid to police bureaucracy and the personal and social lives of the characters as to the murder case.
In a way, the focus is taken away from the killer, who is almost a faceless quasi-mythological figure, and placed upon those hunting him instead, and it is a testament to the talents of the cast that characters which could easily become clichéd archetypes (the obsessive amateur, the alcoholic but brilliant writer, the dogged cops) are genuinely believable, complex, well-rounded figures who are flawed yet genuinely sympathetic.
I must stress that this is a film that really requires concentration and probably more than one viewing to appreciate the complexity of the central case. If you're friends or family talk through films, don't watch it with them, otherwise you'll miss stuff and won't know what the hell is going on/who people are etc. However, though the film is complex it is certainly rewarding and, while the fact that whatever theory the protagonist grasps crumbles may seem frustrating, it is in actuality enthralling, and Fincher's film is ultimately one that is as much about obsession as it is the mystery itself.
Forget the tedious, suspense-less "Panic Room", "Zodiac" is Fincher right back on form.