Anatomy of an investigation

Rating: 7/10 (4 June 2007)

Given the fact that the story of the Zodiac killer, who left taunting notes in codes and cyphers bragging about his recent kills to the local papers, seemed already like a movie plot brought to life, (several existing films, most famously 1971's Dirty Harry already took inspiration from the real life events) a film adaptation of the tale seemed inevitable. Audiences can be thankful then, that the story was snapped up by the more than capable director David Fincher, himself no stranger to serial killer films after 1995's brilliant Se7en, who blissfully resists the temptation to morph the story into an uninspired, turgid teen slasher film, and instead present the tale as it actually transpired - as an engrossing crime drama. Zodiac looks and feels like a throwback to such 70s political detective stories as All the President's Men, and it is unquestionably refreshing to see a movie detailing a serial killer which is not afraid to allow its audience to think for a change.
There is no question that director Fincher has done an abundance of research on his chosen topic, it's Fincher's reverence to his subject matter is both what makes the film a triumph, and yet proves its downfall all at the same time. While the details of the case are admittably fascinating, (though the supposedly objective portrayal of the case does feel rather biased at times, and it's clear who Graysmith, the author of the novel the film adapts, fingered as the real killer) and the film kicks off at a brisk pace, ensnaring the audience's attention right off the bat, it appears Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt have worked perhaps too hard to incorporate every last trace of information regarding the case.
While for the first half of the film, it becomes increasingly difficult to pry one's eyes from the screen, once the case moves to the point when the killing spree was long finished, the question is posed as to whether it was essential to the storyline to show every last potential lead to the case. From this point on, the film starts to drag, losing both its momentum and the audience's interest. In the end, for however much energy and factual interest Fincher can squeeze out of his film, it is still a 158 minute movie which the audience knows is going to end in an anti-climax, (anyone following the case in the news knows that the killer's real identity was never discovered) which after a while makes the audience wonder if every ominous piece of foreshadowing is really necessary. A bit of judicious editing, whittling down the talky bits, would make the film feel more streamlined, tense and far more effective.
The fact that Fincher's project feels a touch fact bloated at times, especially in the middle section is a shame indeed, for when the film is good, it is a rousing success. The dramatic confrontation scenes crackle with sheer intensity, and the criminal investigation for the most part (especially during the film's beginning and end) is tense and engaging. Fincher also perfectly captures the feel for the period; the 1970s clothing, bustling newspaper offices complete with typewriters and liberal facial hair on most of the male cast members seem to throw the viewer back thirty years flawlessly. The film's score by David Shire also proves highly effective, both at amplifying the tension and dramatic punch of the confrontations with the killer, and helping bring the slower scenes to life more. Overall, the film's strong points still stand out fiercely over the slower bits, and it just feels like a shame whenever the film drags and starts to become uninteresting, since the stronger sections were so intensely engaging it feels almost unjust to begin to lose interest.
The film's cast also helps the material rise from a more standard "based on a true story" serial killer drama to a more realistic and captivating take. Jake Gyllenhaal certainly fits the profile of the earnest young cartoonist who finds himself drawn in by the elusive killer's case, and overall he gives a strong performance though at times his character comes across as a poorly written device to advance the plot, which is irritating to say the least. Mark Ruffalo solidly inhabits the role of the weary inspector Toschi; his laid back charisma perfectly complimenting the character while avoiding the stereotype of the burnt out cop. The perfectly cast Robert Downey Jr. walks away with the show with an energetic and poignant performance as Paul Avery, the charismatic journalist whose life is slowly consumed by the unsolved case. Character actor Brian Cox also makes a welcome appearance as specialist Melvin Belli, and he shines in his brief scenes.
Overall, Zodiac succeeds to such a great degree in so many aspects, it is unfortunate to see the more engaging elements of the plot weighed down by so many plot points which feel repetitive and unnecessary. The period feel is immaculate, and Fincher proves his mastery at creating tension more successfully than almost any other director still making films, but overall Zodiac feels like a far greater film struggling to emerge from a padded out simply acceptable film. The film still merits watching for its many successes, but be prepared to invest enough time, thought and interest to fully appreciate the film as a whole.
-7/10