Theatrical Review of Zodiac

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

David Fincher's "Zodiac" has been called "Seven: Part Two" in some circles. This film, about California's Zodiac serial killer, has more in common with TV's "Law & Order" than the Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman film.

The year is 1969 and a string of murders starts in California. A boy and a girl in a secluded "make-out" spot. Another couple in broad daylight by a lake. A cab driver. Concurrent with each of these attacks, three newspapers in the San Francisco area receive letters containing a message in code as well as a note taking credit for the killings. At the San Francisco Chronicle, cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) becomes enraptured with the story, as does a colleague, Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.). Over the course of time, the investigation grows cold and everyone moves on from Zodiac...except Graysmith.

"Zodiac," running an overlong 158 minutes (or 2 hours 38 minutes), has little in common with director Fincher's arguably most famous film "Seven". Both films center on serial killers and document the struggle to bring him to justice. However, where "Seven" gave us a kinetic investigation and an unforgettable finale, "Zodiac" is hampered by the fact it is based on a true story...and the Zodiac killer is still at large. Going in, we know there isn't going to be a neat wrap up to the story when the screen fades to black for the last time. It takes the wind out of the movie's sails from the very start.

It may be that we, as an American audience, are accustomed to all our stories having an end point, something that ties up the plotlines in a nice neat bow. That is the very definition of "climax," isn't it? When all the pieces come together and the entire picture is finally formed. There are instances when one plotline is stretched for the run of an entire TV series ("Lost") or a franchise of films (Harry Potter), but by and large we are conditioned to accept the wrap up. Outside of a couple paragraphs immediately before the end credits roll, there is no closure to the case. Mostly because it is still unsolved.

For a movie about a serial killer, "Zodiac" is suspiciously light on any sort of action. It is true the opening murder is bloody and somewhat graphic; yet an attack later in the film doesn't follow normal Hollywood action conventions. Blood doesn't spurt out of every stab wound nor does clothing become immediately saturated with the red liquid. It feels sanitized, in a way, as if Fincher was aiming to make a different kind of murder story.

"Zodiac" is more "Law & Order" than "Seven" in another respect: we follow the investigation from the beginning from the vantage point of two detectives (Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards) as well as from the point of view of the Avery and Graysmith. It's a very linear film in that respect. Everything the police know-and by default, what the audience knows-comes in easily manageable pieces. Sometimes those pieces are too manageable and obvious. An interview sequence makes great pains to point out, using various camera shots, the type of shoe Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) wears; his watch is a Zodiac watch; he walks with the same near limp as the Zodiac killer. If the shots weren't enough by Fincher to clue the audience in, Ruffalo's David Toschi then gives voice to all these things. How much more obvious can it get?

There is just something wrong with "Zodiac" I can't put my finger on. It tells its story effectively and remains mostly engrossing. The running time is a concern, especially when the cops exit the investigation in the film's latter stages so Graysmith can continue to track Zodiac. While this part of the film might be true, it seems terribly forced from a critical view. How many times have the cops given up only to have an "everyman" get farther than they did? Entirely too many, for the record. That's exactly what happens here, though we have no good reason to believe Graysmith's obsession rationalization. He claims he needs to see Zodiac's eyes and know it was him.

This cartoonist has no personal stake in finding Zodiac. His family was not threatened. No one he knew was killed. Why would be put his wife and children in harms way? And why would the police allow him to do it? Toschi, among others, helps him out by granting access to evidence and information. That has to be some kind of security breach, not to mention a liability issue. Is it because his "friend' Avery was obsessed with the case and was driven to ruin because of it? Possibly, but the "friendship" between the two is never fully explored to get the audience to that point. The only other reason could be in a line Graysmith utters fairly early in the film: he likes puzzles. And Zodiac is a puzzle.

But what is it that keeps "Zodiac" from being as acclaimed as it should be, especially with this all star cast? Nothing happens, pure and simple. The cops and reporters are stuck in reactive, as opposed to proactive, mode. They have to wait for Zodiac to give them a clue before they start running prints or handwriting samples. The most kinetic and serial killer-esque sequence in the film centers on Graysmith's encounter with a former associate of Allen's on...you guess it...a dark and rainy night in the middle of nowhere. This old man lives in a decaying house, his basement acting as storage for vintage films. Graysmith believes this man, this old man, is Zodiac at this point based on one line of dialogue. So when he's invited into the basement, the entire audience (and Graysmith) believe the inevitable is going to happen: an action finale. To spoil anymore would be wrong, since it is the tensest portion of the production.

In forsaking the typical serial killer genre, Fincher dove headlong into the dreaded "based on actual events" genre. We're even told that at the outset: based on actual case files. And that's, alternately, what is right and wrong with this film: it adheres so closely to the books written by the real-life Graysmith it never pops its head up to care what its doing. The information is all there, irrefutably, but the emotion is gone. When Graysmith's wife leaves him (along with the kids), he doesn't start cursing uncontrollably to vow to give up the Zodiac investigation; he lets her go and focuses even more on Zodiac. This is a man whose priorities are seriously out of touch with where they should be.

Before we wrap up, it would be wrong not to mention the cast. As with Ryan Phillippe in "Breach," Gyllenhaal shows he is more than a one-note cowboy. In the aforementioned basement sequence, there is a terror in his eyes absent during the rest of the film. Somehow, at that moment, we understand the horrific thoughts running through his head, more horrific than the idea of losing his family. He is fearful for himself. Downey, Jr., does what he does best: the just-off-center character who brings a bit of spice to the story. Regrettably, the Paul Avery character drops out of the narrative far too early. Brian Cox, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Chloe Sevigny, Clea DuVall (in a blink and you miss her role), Philip Baker Hall...they all add to the overall narrative, flawed as it is.

(One brief mention about Cox's character, attorney Melvin Belli. At one point, Belli and a TV personality briefly talk about Belli's role as Gorgan in the original "Star Trek" episode "And the Children Shall Lead." Belli says it is a pity the "good show" was cancelled.)

"Zodiac," on the scale of 1 to 10, rates a 6.5. The overload of information about the Zodiac feels too much like reading a case file without any real human emotion. Well produced, "Zodiac" is a diversion and a history lesson, but, sadly, little more.

---

---