Personally...

Rating: 8/10 (20 August 2007)

I feel like my whole life had passed in front of my eyes in two hours and a half. Many movies cover many years of the lives of their characters ("The Shawshank redemption" is a perfect example that comes to mind), but few do it so vividly as David Fincher's "Zodiac"; the story of a serial killer who haunted the police and the press for thirty years. If you need to know, the case hasn't been solved yet.
What happens in "Zodiac" is that: a lot of years. Some of the characters really seem like they've aged with the dates we see on screen and some look the same, but we stop caring at one point because we're completely involved in the story. I wouldn't say that the movie moves fast, but it definitely moves strong; it is, as "Letters From Iwo Jima", a piece of instant impact and a director's piece in every aspect.
If you've seen a David Fincher film before, you can expect to be confused; so don't complain if "Zodiac" is a bit messy and hard to follow; but it's not "The Game" or "Fight Club". Those two films also shocked me just after watching them, but I don't totally recall them today. Maybe "Zodiac" is Fincher's movie that will stick with me the most; maybe it is his masterpiece, and if you haven't seen any of his films, it's a good place to start.
It would be fair to say that it is the development of the case what is hard to keep up with, but fortunately that's just one thing of the diversity "Zodiac" has to offer. In fact, it's one of the beauties of the film that the 'investigation' is not everything. Fincher knows we've seen to many mystery movies where the case is the focus and where the viewer has to work hard to figure it out ("The Usual Suspects" is a perfect example that comes to mind), so he speeds up the process giving a lot of changing but easy to understand resolutions.
I know it's contradictoryIt's a disorganized process with simple answers, but it's the director's choice; and we forgive him because he provides so much more. "Zodiac" is not just the story of a murder being solved; it's a character piece of the most unusual nature. It's not just about cops and reporters doing their jobs; it's about working men bored with the routine, longing for excitement and about working men frustrated because they can't succeed at the only thing they do.
The first of these explanations refers to two of the main characters: Paul Avery (a flawless Robert Downey Jr.); a reporter with a lot of guts and a fondness for alcohol, and Robert Graysmith (a not so convincing Jake Gyllenhaal, at least after having seen him in "Jarhead"-if you like the guy you must see that film-); a cartoonist who wrote the best-selling book in which the film is based. The latter explanation applies to Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and Dave Toschi (the great Mark Ruffalo: phenomenal); two cops devoted to the case and unable to crack it.
Talking Awards (I know Matias likes that), this is not the film of the year; but it's the kind of film that due to its nature, could get a Best Ensemble nomination for the SAG Award: besides the leads it has Chloe Sevigny, Brian Cox, Phillip Baker Hall, Dermot Mulroney, Donal Logue, Clea DuVall, Adam Goldberg...Not bad. And maybe Adapted Screenplay somewhere; don't know.
Personally, I believe this is one of those pieces where the director is crucial; and I would be glad to see an Oscar nomination 'a la' David Lynch with "Mulholland Dr."; because I think David Fincher should have had one by now But that's just my opinion.