Zodiac

It’s long, but not long-winded. There are conversations, but it’s not chatty. Fincher is a genius at letting actors stand in front of the camera for two and a half hours and talk about a single subject. However, without a single directorial excess, with only the stylish atmosphere of the 1960s - 1980s span and a very austere Zodiac rampage, the film keeps a steady pace throughout the runtime, and the viewer eventually gets the feeling that the biggest action consists of copying ciphered letters or writing Graysmith's book. Given his previous work, this is a 180° turn, and yet it proves all the more that Fincher's range of skills still offers (especially in the future) many pleasant surprises for the audience. (2007-07-21)

A captivating mosaic of facts that lacks the limiting features of the thriller genre and literally redeems the viewer in one of the most mysterious cases of forensic history. The only thing I would criticize is the long runtime; otherwise I liked everything essential – the stylization, music, acting, conception of the characters. Zodiac is simply a very unconventional look at an attractive substance, which most directors would turn into a thrilling idyll with an ending, where the killer gets it in the chest and it’s over. Fortunately, Fincher stuck to the facts and created a documentary, a civil and somewhat of a retro spectacle that I personally truly enjoyed. If you are expecting something attractive in the style of Seven, you are better off not going to the movie theatre. (2007-06-14)

Not nearly as progressive and daring as one would expect from the David Fincher. After several visually brilliant downers, he puts us to sleep in a perfectly balanced and “cinematic” film about a mass murderer, where there are very few murders, but a lot of talking, and just the right amount of atmosphere. The plot is linear and not at all complicated, which is truly a miracle, because with similarly executed films, you usually lose track of the names appearing on the screen after just a few minutes due to the director’s incompetence. But here it's different, everything is clear, we know what is happening, we know how it's happening, we just don't know who the real killer is. Several scenes are expertly escalated and fantastically performed, but several shots are like an eyesore (incredibly obvious and awkwardly styled digital shots of the city, inappropriate to the atmosphere of the 1970s). And so the film essentially just mumbles, and the viewer goes on their way. It's a nice watch, but too long and not dynamic enough. It certainly can't be considered a textbook film. (2008-02-04)

"There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer". It’s been a long time since a movie has had such a fitting slogan. Zodiac is something completely different to your regular mystery thriller. The classic thriller scheme creates a space for the characters involved with the investigation and their obsession with their detective work, with attention to catastrophic consequences that this line of work inevitably has on them and those around them. You just can’t help comparing Zodiac to the South Korean Memories of Murder. Which is a bit of a paradox, since the latter at that time was presented somewhat disrespectfully and inaccurately as a dark thriller in the style of Se7en. And nothing could be further from the truth. Zodiac is crying out to be compared to that Asian picture; they are extremely similar to each other in some ways. Despite the intelligent and interesting screenplay (even for those who are familiar with this particular case), tight production design, perfect stylization and absolutely convincing actors, in the end the atmosphere is the strongest ace up Fincher’s sleeve. He manages to wring a thick atmosphere out of every scene, so you don’t even notice that you have been watching three hours of dialog… P.S.: In collaboration with Vanderbilt, Fincher proves again that he is a master of “unfilmable" adaptations. Here, they succeeded with flying colors. They made a movie is a even better (and more relevant) than Graysmith’s book. (2007-06-08)

Fincher is simply good, and his version of the investigation of the legendary murder series in the American West, whose perpetrator yearned for fame and manipulated the media, has undeniable tension, a long runtime, a good pace, and I hardly find any weaknesses to criticize Fincher for. For me, Zodiac holds a higher place than the artificial cult thriller Seven. Perhaps only due to the enormous amount of facts, evidence, characters, and witness statements that Fincher tried to fit into his film, making it difficult for the viewer to orient themselves. In the end, I am inclined to give it only 4 stars. Most importantly, Fincher shows a clear distinction between the fictional world of crime stories and detective tales and the grim reality where investigators are confronted with poor resources, incompetence of superiors, stupidity, and the sensationalism of many pseudo-witnesses. On the other hand, they are required to irrefutably prove the guilt of a suspect based on evidence, so that the jury cannot acquit them. Overall impression: 85%. By the way, in two scenes where he deviates from the documentary style toward thriller tension, the director demonstrates his expertise. The scene with the mother in the car on the night highway and, above all, the visit to the old projectionist and the joint trip to the underground spaces of the house have genuine horror tension and atmosphere. (2012-11-18)