Print Email this storyEmail story Comment Email editor
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Friend's name Friend's email
Your message
 

Film review

Signs are bad for 'Zodiac'

The film, inspired by the tale of the serial killer of the same name, fails to generate any real suspense.

By STEVE PERSALL
Published March 1, 2007


ADVERTISEMENT

Practically every classic movie sociopath since the 1970s - from Hannibal Lecter to John Doe in Se7en - was inspired by the case of the Zodiac killer, who taunted and terrorized Northern California and was never caught.

Crime buffs have been fascinated by the mass murderer, whose handiwork rivaled Jack the Ripper's in hubris and horror.

So how then did director David Fincher, who also crafted Se7en and its superbly calculated suspense, make Zodiac so dull? The film is more of a tutorial on frustrated police procedure and journalism ethics, as talky and pragmatic about mass murder as Breach is about spy games. It contains only about 20 minutes of terror in its 145 minutes.

James Vanderbilt's screenplay concentrates on a concerned bystander who wrote the definitive book on the subject. Robert Graysmith, played by Jake Gyllenhaal with minimal intensity, was an editorial cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle when densely cryptic correspondences from the killer began.

The problem with Zodiac is that none of the characters directly involved with the case get much done. The killer's code is cracked by a barely shown suburban couple; the victims are simply in the wrong places.

Fincher forgets that cold cases make good entertainment when someone with personality finds clues to make the files worth reopening. Nobody expects him to invent history but more speculation and denouement would help.

Graysmith spends half the film fiddling with coded clues while editors fret and detectives furrow their brows.

The leads he pursues don't generate tension until late in the film, when he confronts a prime suspect, but can't accuse him. Graysmith gets his book but not his man.

We're shown a handful of genuinely tense murder scenes and a deliciously decadent performance by Robert Downey Jr. as Chronicle crime reporter Paul Avery, a newsroom agitator with a drug habit. But he is eliminated too soon.

That leaves Graysmith and a stymied detective Mark Ruffalo as half-baked heroes with personal lives that aren't interesting.

Zodiac looks and sounds like the descent into darkness this case deserves, completely shot in digital video for a mildly you-are-there approach. David Shire's musical score resists the abrupt stings other movies use to scare viewers when nothing scary is happening. The editing doesn't rely on shock cuts, either. Fincher's movie might benefit from a few such cheats since there's so little that's scary going on.

Steve Persall can be reached at (727) 893-8365 or persall@sptimes.com.

Review

Zodiac

Grade: C

Director: David Fincher

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Chloe Sevigny, Brian Cox, Anthony Edwards, John Carroll Lynch, Elias Koteas

Screenplay: James Vanderbilt, based on the book by Robert Graysmith

Rating: R; violence, profanity, sexual images, drug content

Running time: 145 min.

[Last modified February 28, 2007, 09:50:47]


Share your thoughts on this story

Comments on this article
by jim 03/03/07 09:42 AM
The movie is good. Long, but good. If you have any interest, go see it.
by Hellie 03/02/07 11:59 AM
So did you just give away the fact that Robert Downey Jr.'s character is killed? HRMPH. I'll be so bummed if that's the case.
by chrisztina 03/02/07 11:16 AM
why show people such a movie..then they copycat .bad ideas make bad movies.hollywood should be ashamed
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT