Action / Crime / Drama / History / Mystery / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 89%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 77%
IMDb Rating 7.7 10 432971


Uploaded By: OTTO
August 08, 2011 at 12:34 AM



Jake Gyllenhaal as Robert Graysmith
Robert Downey Jr. as Paul Avery
Mark Ruffalo as Inspector David Toschi
Dermot Mulroney as Captain Marty Lee
694.17 MB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
2 hr 37 min
P/S 43 / 285

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by NumeroOne 6 / 10

As interesting and as tedious as a thirty-year unsolved case

*This comment may contain spoilers, but I tried to be as vague as possible, and I think that this movie actually improves if you more or less know the ending.*

When David Fincher's ZODIAC opens with the year "1969" on the screen, a colorful wide angle shot of California, and a song from "Hair" on the soundtrack, we think we know what we are in for: an atmospheric historical epic. Then the film's first murder happens, and we are at the San Francisco chronicle with Jake Gyllenhall and Robert Downey, Jr., just recognizable enough under their period garb.

We see three other murders or almost-murders within the first 1 1/2 hours of this 2 1/2 hour movie, and they are terrifying in a way that few movie murders are: this is one of the only movies that succeeds at making you identify with the victims, and the murder scenes contain enough gore to be convincing but not so much gore that it becomes its own aesthetic, as in other Fincher films.

But ZODIAC is so long that eventually, the murders fail to keep our attention. The movie makes so many leaps through time and recounts so many investigations that lead nowhere, it is easy to forget that it began as an exciting movie.

One could easily argue that the movie has a right to be so uneventful because it is a "realistic" reflection of police procedure and of, well, reality. It is, but one can't help but think, With all the time-lapsing that goes on (it constantly jumps months ahead in the late '60s and early '70s, and then jumps from '73 to '77 to '83 to '91), why couldn't it skip more boring parts? The movie manages to be both too truncated and too thorough.

On a positive note, the digital cinematography by Harris Savides gives the film a consistently interesting look, which is something that many better movies don't have. He gives the film the signature "Fincher" look: saturated pastels in the daytime and a vague yellow-green tint at night. The movie is visually interesting without being calling too much attention to itself, but it's a shame that there's not enough to watch. The actors are sufficient, but the movie has no protagonist and we don't get to know anyone well enough - not even Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhall), who becomes the de facto main character half way through.

The friendship between Graysmith and Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) - particularly a bar scene in which Graysmith introduces Avery to the merits of girly drinks - is interesting enough, but when Avery ceases to be a major character, we don't get enough of an indication that Graysmith has a life outside of his obsession with the Zodiac case. That may have been the point, but it doesn't work: there is nothing wrong with a plot that goes nowhere if the characters manage to hold our interest, but they don't hold our interest for all 2 1/2 hours, and the movie itself seems to lose interest in Graysmith towards the end. ZODIAC has no pay-off, which wouldn't be a problem if it weren't such a plot-driven film.

Still, it has its moments that nearly redeem it. It's a bit like a friend who tells long and meandering but enthusiastic stories: once you realize that his stories will always be too long, you can focus on the better parts. But his stories are still too long.

Reviewed by FountainPen 4 / 10

Tries hard but fails.

My number one question is WHY was Gyllenhaal cast in the lead? He's extremely ineffectual, mealy-mouthed, delivers his lines in an irritatingly mumbling, raspy manner. Next is the matter of the music chosen for various segments: totally inappropriate. OK, the songs are from the right time period, but they simply do not connect with what's on screen in most instances. I sincerely wanted to "enjoy" and appreciate thisfilm, but I was thwarted, sadly. The players try hard, but fail. At least this movie was not shot in near-darkness as many films of the past 30 years have been, oddly. Is lighting too expensive? Sorry I cannot rate this higher than 4.

Reviewed by areatw 8 / 10

Fascinating and successfully chilling

'Zodiac' is a compelling and very well-made film focusing on an amateur detective's investigation into the infamous Zodiac killer, whose identity remains a mystery to this day. It is rare for a factual crime film to go into such detail about events that took place in real life, but 'Zodiac' ensures that all of the key points of this case are covered. As a result, the film is nearly three hours long, but every scene serves a purpose and the running time is never felt.

The graphic scenes of murder at the very start of the film do a good job at setting the scene, throwing the audience right into the case and creating a tense atmosphere from the get go. The tension rarely lets up, with the pacing of the film ensuring that there's always a new plot development around the corner. The acting is also very good, with Jake Gyllenhaal delivering the stand out performance and probably a career best from him. An excellent film all round, highly recommended for those who enjoy true crime stories.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment