User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 424 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 19 out of 424
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. RobertR
    Sep 13, 2007
    5
    It feels more like a Private Eye-tutorial doc than an artsy movie. And that's a compliment, since its comprehensive detail is overly impressive--to the point of a BBC/PBS doc or an Atlantic/Harper's article. Yet its dexterity to tell a compelling and purposeful story is absent--the characters are self-indulged in Zodiac-obsession, the characters only do Zodiac-related talk, It feels more like a Private Eye-tutorial doc than an artsy movie. And that's a compliment, since its comprehensive detail is overly impressive--to the point of a BBC/PBS doc or an Atlantic/Harper's article. Yet its dexterity to tell a compelling and purposeful story is absent--the characters are self-indulged in Zodiac-obsession, the characters only do Zodiac-related talk, things exemplified are too-plot concerned. Expand
  2. EliasK.
    Mar 13, 2007
    4
    They should have paid me to sit through that bullsh.t.
  3. GS.
    Mar 9, 2007
    4
    BORING! Gotta say, I'm a huge Fincher fan, but he missed the boat on this one. Not enough plot, no real suspense, and I didn't care for any of the characters after the first 30 minutes. The acting was great, but this movie seemed to take itself too seriously. Fincher did a great job of condensing all that info into a movie that people could follow, but it would have been better BORING! Gotta say, I'm a huge Fincher fan, but he missed the boat on this one. Not enough plot, no real suspense, and I didn't care for any of the characters after the first 30 minutes. The acting was great, but this movie seemed to take itself too seriously. Fincher did a great job of condensing all that info into a movie that people could follow, but it would have been better served as a documentary on the case rather than a feature movie. Seems like there was no real need to make this movie. Expand
  4. RyanB.
    Mar 4, 2007
    4
    This is a great movie but a 3 hour movie and the middle part of it gets boring as hell and it is predictable based on a true story and the zodiac killer was never caught and the movie was featured on americas most wanted if you watch that episode it will tell you everything that happened in the movie.
  5. JonS.
    Mar 8, 2007
    5
    This was a sub-par movie should have been like hour and a half but stretched it out for like 3 hours. It did have some funny dialogue but overall it was an average movie.
  6. Oct 11, 2011
    6
    the movie started out good and played great, but it had a real is-that-it ending, and that spoiled the experience a bit for me.
  7. Jul 17, 2012
    4
    Yeah, well, I thought the story had potential, but when I watched it, it was just so boring. The characters I liked because they were played by some of my favourite actors - Robert Downey Jr, for example. Of course, even less than halfway through the film, everything just seemed to fade away, trying to look clever for its own sake. The actors were barely able to keep the script alive. ButYeah, well, I thought the story had potential, but when I watched it, it was just so boring. The characters I liked because they were played by some of my favourite actors - Robert Downey Jr, for example. Of course, even less than halfway through the film, everything just seemed to fade away, trying to look clever for its own sake. The actors were barely able to keep the script alive. But it didn't even manage to keep it all together - from something based on a serial killer, seriously! When a film has a serial killer in it, you've got to make it exciting! Where was the tension, the heart pounding moments? I know this was a true story, but that does not automatically make the film watch-able, let alone successful. Expand
  8. JohnR.
    Mar 19, 2007
    6
    On one side, it was a good movie overall and enjoyable. It was well acted and very well made. However, it was ultimately unsatisfying. There really wasn't much suspense at all and the Jake Gyllenhall character's efforts promised much but delivered very little. Ultimately, the screenplay is to blame. What a pity.
  9. AllistairP.
    Mar 2, 2007
    6
    I think David Fincher started reading the reviews of his movies, as he decisvely strives away from INTENSE camera action and DRAMATIC storytelling. For the first hour this feels as good as any movie by the man, as it weaves in and out of the story and characters. Some great actors (Robert Downey is the shit!) and directing, but it all just half asses itself to the end. Perhaps the Zodiac I think David Fincher started reading the reviews of his movies, as he decisvely strives away from INTENSE camera action and DRAMATIC storytelling. For the first hour this feels as good as any movie by the man, as it weaves in and out of the story and characters. Some great actors (Robert Downey is the shit!) and directing, but it all just half asses itself to the end. Perhaps the Zodiac is best left for books or a "BS" Hollywood script adaptation, as I'm sure no audience will feel that fufilled with any parts of this story. You can do worse for a movie to watch on a friday night, but David Fincher can do much better for a follow up to so many classic films. (WARNING: I liked Panic Room). Expand
  10. MattP.
    Mar 6, 2007
    6
    Way, wayyyyyyy too long. Too much exposition at the end and not enough Fincher-esque suspense. If this movie was cut down by about 45 minutes, then it would get a 10, but as is, a 6.
  11. DWilly
    Mar 11, 2007
    6
    Very strong movie making skills on display, but, ultimately, you feel had. The acting is solid throughout, although Downey causes some Courtney Love style just-playing-your-debauched-self winces; but Mark Ruffalo, taking another step toward big time actor, pretty much leaves everybody else in the dust. Apart from one great scene, with the guy who's the best guess for the real Zodiac, Very strong movie making skills on display, but, ultimately, you feel had. The acting is solid throughout, although Downey causes some Courtney Love style just-playing-your-debauched-self winces; but Mark Ruffalo, taking another step toward big time actor, pretty much leaves everybody else in the dust. Apart from one great scene, with the guy who's the best guess for the real Zodiac, not much of this stylish collection of facts and red-herring effects sticks. Expand
  12. SusanH.
    Mar 4, 2007
    6
    In many ways, as others have commented this is a really good movie, but ultimately many sections are flat and tedious. Perhaps Fincher was trying to give the audience a true sense of what crime investigation is really like and how the many false leads and dead ends lead to an obsessive need to find the answer.
  13. BilB.
    Mar 12, 2007
    6
    Every nook and cranny, ever corner and turn was covered and re-covered leaving nothing to the imagination. A really good film showing the SF at the time, even down to the commercials playing on the radio which brought back many memories, but nevertheless, I found myself dozing off and getting bored with the predicatble performance of Robert Downey. Overall, a 6 in my book.
  14. May 23, 2015
    6
    Zodiac is based on actual events. It's a movie about a handful of detectives trying to track down a serial killer who goes by The Zodiac Killer. Suspense is provided at times and the movie is acted well. My problem with it? It's boring. I'm sorry but it just is and the fact that it's over two and a half hours doesn't help. It's not eventful eenough so it feels stretched out, like it movesZodiac is based on actual events. It's a movie about a handful of detectives trying to track down a serial killer who goes by The Zodiac Killer. Suspense is provided at times and the movie is acted well. My problem with it? It's boring. I'm sorry but it just is and the fact that it's over two and a half hours doesn't help. It's not eventful eenough so it feels stretched out, like it moves at a snail's pace. It's a good movie in most regards, though, which is why I give it a 6/10, but it's just pretty boring. Expand
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 40
  2. Negative: 0 out of 40
  1. Firing on all cylinders as a creepy thriller, police procedural and "All the President's Men"-style investigative newsroom drama, the smart, extremely vivid production oozes period authenticity.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    90
    Conveying an astonishing array of information across a long narrative arc while still maintaining dramatic rhythm and tension, this adaptation of Robert Graysmith's bestseller reps by far director David Fincher's most mature and accomplished work.
  3. Reviewed by: Nathan Lee
    100
    Zodiac exhausts more than one genre. Termite art par excellence, it burrows for the sake of burrowing, as fascinated by its own nooks and crannies as "Inland Empire."