Zodiac-Two reviews in one

Zodiac is quite an impressive movie for so early in the year. As a result I have included two reviews. The first is by my colleague Peggy K. The one that follws is by me. I think they tackle the film from different angles. Enjoy.
N@

Zodiac
I have to start by admitting that I am a true crime enthusiast/fanatic. From the time I heard this movie was being made I couldn't wait for it to come out.

The movie is based on books by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle at the time "Zodiac" killed several people in that area, beginning in the late '60's. The killer sent taunting letters to the local newspapers, which is how Graysmith got involved, and ultimately obsessed, with the case. His first book, Zodiac written in the mid-1980's details the crimes, the investigation and possible suspects. The Zodiac killer was never "caught" and charged with the crimes, though most of those involved believe they know his identity. (He died in the early 1990's).

In his more recent book, Zodiac Unmasked, Graysmith names that suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen, and writes chronologically of the events and the investigation that spanned many years. This book is the basis for the movie.

Okay, back to the movie. The cast is excellent . Everyone looks the part - hair and clothes - of the 60's and 70's, except maybe the main character. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Graysmith. He probably looks a little more cool in the movie than he actually did in the 60's, but hey, he's the star. Although the actual crimes are briefly touched upon, the real message is the impact on the lives of those closely involved in trying to catch the killer, (not to mention the rest of the Bay Area at the time). At one point, when Graysmith's family life has pretty much fallen apart because of his total absorption in the case, (and remember, he's a cartoonist at the newspaper, not a cop), his wife asks him - why? His answer is that he "has to know who did this". And you totally believe and understand his answer.

This movie is almost 3 hours long, and I don't remember any other 3 hour movies that were worth it. Wait - maybe I don't remember any other 3 hour movies at all!!
When it ended, I couldn't believe that much time had passed.

My husband and daughter also loved the movie; they are not crime afficionados like me.

Peggy K.


Zodiac
David Fincher reinvented the serial killer movie in 1995 with Seven. That film took a stale genre (think Copycat) and made a cool movie that was also utterly scary. With Zodiac, he has reentered the realm of serial killers and creates a movie that is even more interesting.
Zodiac is actually two films about the real life Zodiac Killer (this is why the film’s 157 minute running time is needed). One film is a polished thriller complete with gruesome murders (you will have a real sense of what being stabbed must feel like after one scene), thrilling chases, and coincidental plot points. In this movie, the cops have witty banter about animal crackers and there are more than a couple scenes full of sheer terror.
The second film tackles the subject matter as it actually happened. The real Zodiac case dragged on for years, mired by issues of jurisdiction and protocol that are rarely seen in Hollywood depictions of the police. These cops (and reporters who help them) chase more scraps of paper, archived documents, and “telefaxes” (which were the very latest in crime fighting technology at the time) than they do actual perps. This story has no clear arc; like real life it has fits and spurts and a somewhat disappointing conclusion.
These two films intertwine and compete for the viewers attention. Both films collide in a meta- scene where the characters go to see a film version of their lives, all inside of another movie about their lives. Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) stands defeated in front of a movie poster of an exultant Dirty Harry. This image presents the viewer with a question: Which movie would you rather watch? The cool, moody thriller or the procedural real life story?
I am embarrassed to say that I became so enthralled in the scary elements of the movie that I secretly hoped Fincher would turn away from the facts of the case and give us what he and only a handful of other directors can, an actual horror movie. In the end he is able to raise the real story to a level that is more interesting and engrossing, which shows just how talented he is as a director.