Way back in Episode 20 as we discussed movies based on true events, PBF brought up Zodiac saying it was well-directed, well-acted, and quite engrossing in spite of its lengthy runtime. Now, having seen the movie, I agree with all points above. And that is my review. Good night!
Well, I might be able to get into a bit more detail. Centered around the Zodiac killings of the late 1960s in California, the David Fincher directed thriller is more based on the act of catching a killer through monotonous investigation rather than the murders themselves. This is quite remarkable even considering that the Zodiac murders could have merely been a blip on the radar if not for the killer taunting the police and news reporters with letters, phone calls, and bloody pieces of fabric.
For anyone watching this expecting another Se7en out of Fincher, you will be horribly disappointed as this is the least straight-forward serial killer movie I have seen in quite a while. The thing that is truly engrossing about the movie, and according to PBF the story itself, is that the gaps in the facts pull you into the story even more as all the investigators (and as such Fincher and writer James Vanderbilt) have to go on is spotty information from traumatized or less than reliable witnesses. Similar to the case, Zodiac is strung together on a series of damning, yet highly circumstantial, evidence that leads to the “favorite” suspect as much as it clears him. It is quite different to see a movie that is put together just like a court case, without a “smoking gun” and asking you to come to your own conclusions.
I really don’t even know where to start with the cast as they were all phenomenal. Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards as the San Francisco detectives Dave Toschi and Bill Armstrong respectively tasked with the Zodiac case are incredible, both in their prowess to the clues leading to Zodiac and the banter they have between them. (Favorite line: “You’re not an idiot, you waited for him to put it in park.”) Likewise, their journalistic counterparts of Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) and Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) are equally respectable as both are invested in the case to the point that they risk their own safety (and sanity) to track down information on their own.
He has not really impressed me before, but I was quite blown away by Gyllenhaal who begins the story as a meek political cartoonist on the outskirts of the investigation only to take charge when it has been all but forgotten. His transformation from naive and bright-eyed to totally consumed with cracking the mystery of Zodiac was gradual enough but damn compelling as he almost single-handedly puts together the decades-old pieces of the puzzle that no one else cared to. While I fully expect that some elements of the story were fabricated or fictionalized compared to the real events, the character of Graysmith (who was also the writer of the source book) was one of the most complete and successful depictions of a character that would be largely inconsequential in another movie.
That is what I enjoyed the most in this film: almost everything you would expect in a true Hollywood film does not happen. There is no grand stand-off between the lead cop and the villain. Some characters (even played by pretty decent actors like Zach Grenier or Brian Cox) are around for a handful of scenes and just disappear. Fincher leaves a lot of grey area around the innocence or guilt of the prime suspect as the evidence is compelling, but not a sure thing. Even the ending (which I suspect would piss a lot of people off) is purposely vague and almost anti-climactic with no real resolution in the case at hand, just like the real events were. Rather than detract from the movie, this only makes it more engaging as we are clamoring for solid answers that do not exist. In fact, I cannot think of a more satisfying movie that leaves so many questions unanswered.
Comments
Post a Comment