Zodiac review

 Number 640 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Fincher's mystery thriller Zodiac.

Telling the true story of the investigation into the infamous Zodiac killer, 'Zodiac' stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo. Jake Gyllenhaal stars as San Fransisco Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith and Downey Jr plays crime reporter Paul Avery. Both journalists become so obsessed with investigating the Zodiac killer that their lives quickly fall apart. Rounding out the trio is police inspector Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo.)

There's no denying the Zodiac killer has its place in the cultural zeitgeist. This film was released in 2007, a good thirty-three years after he supposedly stopped killing. Buzzfeed's video concerning Zodiac has over 15 million views. A few years ago there was even a running joke that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac killer. The Zodiac Killer is a cultural phenomenon and David Fincher capitalised on this brilliantly. Drawing inspiration from Robert Graysmith's true-crime books 'Zodiac' and 'Zodiac unmasked.' Fincher is a great thriller director, but he has a tendency to be gratuitous in his depiction of violence. Se7en is a top example of this. However, he shot Zodiac with a nice level of restraint. I thought we would be seeing Zodiac brutally torturing and killing his victims, but Fincher was far more subtle than this. 

Although what he had in subtlety, he lacked in pacing. I would argue that the film was unevenly paced. It is set between 1969 and 1991. And things move along very quickly. Too quickly, I think. Fincher would show one scene in a particular year and then move on before you have time to get your breath. You would see a scene from 1970 and then the next scene is in 1971. You don't have time to adjust to one scene before it has moved onto the next. This fast-paced nature did make things hard to follow at times. 

However, Fincher did well to always keep the suspense up. I'm not an expert on the Zodiac killer, but I know that he was never identified or caught. I was wondering how this might affect the ending. Would Fincher stay true to life or take creative license? He stayed true to life and left the identity of the Zodiac as ambiguous - although heavily implied to be the suspicious Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch,) but this could never be proved. I think if Fincher had offered a definitive solution would have been disrespectful to the real victims of the Zodiac killer. 

If anything, this film was about obsession. Both Graysmith and Avery become obsessed over finding the true identity of the killer and it costs them everything. Graysmith loses his family and Avery turns to drugs and alcohol before eventually losing his job. Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr were great in their parts. Downey Jr played Avery with the usual aloofness that he affects to all his roles, but Gyllenhaal was more understated as the quieter, socially awkward Graysmith. Although that isn't really unlike much of his other roles. But I particularly liked John Carroll Lynch who was heavily suspected of being the Zodiac killer. He played the role with an arrogance and a menace like he knew that he was untouchable. And he was. He died before he could be officially charged.

True, Fincher's pacing is uneven in places, but Zodiac is still a great thriller with genuine scares that don't lean into gory, as well as a tense plot that will keep you guessing. Will we ever find out the true identity of the Zodiac killer? I wouldn't hold my breath.