Filmmakers Will Learn From This Film

Rating: 9/10 (4 March 2007)

The very first thing I will mention about Zodiac is its absolutely brilliant cinematography. The constantly dim lighting, the washing of scenes in tan and taupe, the overall grittiness, capture powerfully David Fincher's seamless attention to ardent period details. Every single spec of the screen is at all times ensured as a precise replica of the time in history that the film portrays. That includes perfect costumes, even when people are dressed shabbily and informally, hairstyles, and other visual touches in that field. The use of music of the times is very effective, executed in a similar style as Scorsese and Spike Lee would tend to place certain retro hits in scenes of violence and montages, meticulously and subtly manipulating the volume. The scenes wherein we are given glimpses of the Zodiac's cruel work have great dramatic effect. Overall, the atmosphere of this film is scrumptiously dark and eery, even though the majority of it follows the three men leading their own branches of investigation.
This film, as wonderfully made as it sounds, spoils itself with its excessive length. I am usually one of those people in the audience who savors a film that runs two and a half or three hours, because I think longer movies tend to leave a deep impact, they're more passionate, and they have longer, more drawn-out stories and even single scenes. The problem with Zodiac is that its length is unneeded. There is a bit that can be cut. Because the movie runs longer than it should, the effect of the cinematography, the period details, and the dark atmosphere lose effect. Like most good things, too much can spoil your appetite. By the arrival of the last forty-five minutes, one is full. And by then, perhaps because the movie realizes it needs to cram the information it hasn't given yet, it becomes more of a seminar on the Zodiac killer than a story, the characters explaining and the closing texts that true stories often end with being too much and too long. The movie does not decrease to the point where it is bad. It simply tapers in impact.
The cast is great. Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, and Jake Gyllenhaal create very realistic people. Robert Downey, Jr. plays himself, rivetingly and entertainingly, even if his end of the story could easily be a good deal of what could be cut. Chloe Sevigny delivers well, the timid element of her role being usual for her and the straight-laced maturity being the opposite. Brian Cox serves a bit of dry comic relief in his role as a laid back yet tightly wound doctor with a hint of snobbery.