Paramount Pictures | Release Date: March 2, 2007
8.5
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 659 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
590
Mixed:
49
Negative:
20
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
theCRITIC2May 23, 2018
Everything about this movie is great. Fincher is a great director. This should have been a Best Picture nominee. What great about this film is that you also become obsessed like the characters there that became obsessed with the mysteriousEverything about this movie is great. Fincher is a great director. This should have been a Best Picture nominee. What great about this film is that you also become obsessed like the characters there that became obsessed with the mysterious case of the Zodiac killer, even after you have watched the film. One best thing about this movie is the visual effects and also the CGI. In fact, you don't feel the visual effects and the CGI because it's done so well.I think this is one of the best movie ever made. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MattBrady99Mar 16, 2018
“THIS IS THE ZODIAC SPEAKING”.

David Fincher's masterpiece "Zodiac" turns 11 years old today and it still scares me. In my opinion, it's my favorite David Fincher film. Just the little details that went into re-creating the crime scenes and
“THIS IS THE ZODIAC SPEAKING”.

David Fincher's masterpiece "Zodiac" turns 11 years old today and it still scares me. In my opinion, it's my favorite David Fincher film. Just the little details that went into re-creating the crime scenes and the overall feel of it. I was surprised to find out how much CGI was in the movie, as it blended so well with the environment it was set in.

There are so many great scenes in this movie that I can't name it all. But that basement scene was just nightmare fuel. It scares me more than any horror movie and it's not even a horror film. The cinematography, the sound, the directing, and Gyllenhaal performance was so excellent. The same goes for the rest of the movie.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
BryceHarperFeb 23, 2018
I wouldn't say this is the best Fincher could do, but I can assure you that if you cannot enjoy watching this, none of Fincher's creation would satisfy you.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
annbdFeb 15, 2018
Based on a true and in my opinion interesting one, the movie will let you disappointed with its two and a half hours inconsistency, unclear dialogues and interrelations between people, as well as not good directing. Today, there are so manyBased on a true and in my opinion interesting one, the movie will let you disappointed with its two and a half hours inconsistency, unclear dialogues and interrelations between people, as well as not good directing. Today, there are so many unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals, who are known to be guilty, but without material evidence. To me, it was interesting to see that problem in a movie, but it could have been made much better. By the way, there are crazy idiots yet, who choose to dress like the Zodiac from the movie on Halloween. Abhorrent.. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
IRONK1979Jan 30, 2018
I didn't know much about the Zodiac before seeing this film and it does a good job at making the story clear and easy to follow with some good tension.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
tripp2themoviesJan 3, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is the best possible movie that could have been made about the unsolved case of the Zodiac Killer. With that being said, the movie will always be a bit annoying because of the fact that the case is indeed unsolved. The movie is always building up to an amazing ending even though most viewers know that the ending will be inconclusive. Just looking at "Zodiac" is a film, it is very good. David Fincher builds tension and suspense very well, and always has the audience on edge. The cinematography in this film is absolutely spectacular, and so is the direction. It is hard to judge this film because of how good of a director Fincher is. This is certainly not his best work to date, 2007, because of the amazing films "Se7en" and "Fight Club," but it is still a very good movie. It is hard to compared to most movies, "Zodiac" is awesome, but compared to David Fincher movies, it is simply good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
WalterTSolleyDec 26, 2017
David Fincher’s masterpiece is a remarkably detailed police procedural. Technically astonishing; even more impressive is the superb writing and acting. Truly terrifying, the work of a filmmaking genius, ultimately addicting. MultipleDavid Fincher’s masterpiece is a remarkably detailed police procedural. Technically astonishing; even more impressive is the superb writing and acting. Truly terrifying, the work of a filmmaking genius, ultimately addicting. Multiple viewings joyously required. Robert Downey, Jr. is brilliant. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
9
gentgaga210Nov 5, 2017
I like killing people because it is so much fun. It is more fun than killing wild game in the forest because man is the most dangerous animal of them all.” This was said by one of the most notorious serial killers in America, the Zodiac.I like killing people because it is so much fun. It is more fun than killing wild game in the forest because man is the most dangerous animal of them all.” This was said by one of the most notorious serial killers in America, the Zodiac. Directed by David Fincher, the film Zodiac (2007) is based on the 1986 non-fiction crime mystery book Zodiac by Robert Graysmith. In the late 1960s, the murderer claimed that he had killed 37 people and despite numerous investigations, the case still remains unsolved and no one has ever been arrested. The film starts out with a sudden and brutal bloodbath, followed by another and another. The Zodiac sends multiple taunting letters of an enigmatic nature written using various ciphers. The Zodiac directly contacts the San Francisco Chronicle: “I want to report a murder…no, a double murder. They are two miles north of Park Headquarters. They were in a white Volkswagen Kharmann Ghia. I’m the one that did it.” An underrated masterpiece of the 21st century, Fincher manages to make the entire investigation much more personal and thrilling. He imbues the film with a subdued tone unlike his previous works Fight Club (1999) and Se7en (1995), which exhilarate the audience with thrills. The title character of the film is the infamous Zodiac, but the film overall is not really about the murderer. The focus quickly transitions from the murderer to the personal lives of those involved in the Zodiac case—David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), the lead inspector, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), a bearded, smoking, alcoholic reporter, and editorial cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal). The obsession behind Graysmith’s 13-year investigation is highlighted by Fincher’s original style of storytelling. He meticulously crafts each frame with visual and narrative information, accurately conveying the passage of time. His constant use of time—presenting days and dates at the bottom of the screen— underlines how quickly time passes in reality, but from Graysmith’s perspective, time moves slowly, and the case seems to drag him down as he obsesses over the murders. As the film continues to go deeper into the case, one cannot help but also become fixated and sometimes pause the film to research more about the Zodiac. This is due to the acting skills—Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance here is one of his best—and the editing that makes this movie incredibly suspenseful and rather fast-moving. With a running time of 156 minutes, the director had a purpose for making it so long. The narrative, transitions, and acting are all so perfectly crafted for the audience that the film rarely feels like it is purposely dragging its running time out. The intense obsession and desire to find out more about the Zodiac can be seen in not only Robert Graysmith, but also David Toschi and Paul Avery. Viewers can see that Detective Toschi, who is trying to solve the case, is always frustrated because all the evidence is circumstantial, while reporter Paul Avery, who always gets high and reads the Zodiac letters while lighting a cigarette, seems to be tense. Just like the poster which is filled with mist, as each of the characters gets more invested in the case, viewers can notice that they are starting to drown in it.

Because this film is based on a true story, it makes the film more exceptional and authentic. Unlike the structure of most narrative films, Zodiac avoids cliché chase scenes, grand finales and climaxes—rather it follows the painstaking process of police investigations. Still, it does not mean that the movie is not terrifying. Viewers will sit on the edge of their seats when Graysmith receives several unknown calls, only hearing heavy breathing over the phone. Viewers might first admire Graysmith’s determination to catch the homicidal murderer only to realize that the film’s main theme is all about obsession and its side effects. Unlike many crime or investigative films, Zodiac is about what happens after everyone forgets about the murderer, except a dedicated few remaining to follow a trail that grows murkier by the day. The movie’s theme of obsession is perfectly represented through the characters, people who want to solve the case not to help the victims, but only to solve the puzzle. In the end, not only do the characters go through an exhaustive investigation, but David Fincher and the others who made the film also had to go through a strenuous proce ss. The crew interviewed survivors of the Zodiac case, went through thousands of documents, and had to retrace the killer’s steps alongside the officers who worked on the case. Their work was not in vain, resulting in a meticulously detailed and suspenseful film.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
chidimeMay 20, 2017
Great movie. The 2nd half is far more captivating and chilling than the first, but both were superb. I fully recommend this. Very long, but really worth it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
DrBlahBlahMay 3, 2017
Aside from The Social Network, this is Fincher's best film. An understated, stylish mystery/thriller, which brilliantly depicts the psychology of obsession.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
BroyaxJan 27, 2017
"Faites entrer l'accusé" pendant 2h37... un excellent épisode au demeurant, un épisode à la manière de David Fincher, c'est-à-dire une mise en scène rigoureuse et fluide, une direction d'acteurs impeccable (jamais vu un acteur "mauvais" quand"Faites entrer l'accusé" pendant 2h37... un excellent épisode au demeurant, un épisode à la manière de David Fincher, c'est-à-dire une mise en scène rigoureuse et fluide, une direction d'acteurs impeccable (jamais vu un acteur "mauvais" quand Fincher est à la barre), bref du bon filmage.

Un peu longuet tout de même : en effet l'émission télé ne dépasse pas une heure et demi en général... alors deux plombes entières et quasiment trois quarts d'heure... (je l'écris en toutes lettres comme une somme avec plein de centimes sur un putain de chèque pour vous donner une idée). Non pas que ce soit chiant, je ne voudrais pas qu'on se méprenne, mais c'est un peu lourd à digérer.

Une affaire non résolue et tortueuse donc (le film semble très documenté sur le sujet) comme il en existe beaucoup et plus que l'on ne croit... mais je me demande si une telle affaire -aussi macabre et merdique- méritait un film triple A. A mon avis, certainement pas, car c'est faire l'apologie d'un psychopathe. Je sais que les psychopathes et autres tueurs en série sont des "stars" aux Etats-Unis mais ma mentalité d'Européen ne l'entend pas de cette oreille.

Aussi conclurai-je par une déclaration : il s'agit d'un film remarquable sur un sujet odieux et abject, et un film d'une complaisance malsaine dont l'utilité laisse fortement dubitatif. A bon entendeur...
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
ThreeboxIndoorsDec 20, 2016
Zodiac is almost three hours long and unlike most films of it kind, it focuses mostly on patient, methodical police work instead of exciting chase sequences or shootouts, yet it manages to be suspenseful throughout the ENTIRE runtime. ThereZodiac is almost three hours long and unlike most films of it kind, it focuses mostly on patient, methodical police work instead of exciting chase sequences or shootouts, yet it manages to be suspenseful throughout the ENTIRE runtime. There is not a single moment no matter how many times i watch it do i think is slow, when yet more than 95% of the film is expositional dialogue. That may sound bad, but in Zodiac, the exposition IS the drama. Drama happens whenever a character learns a new piece of information, and how does that information fit with what they already know. This works so well because we care about every character investigating the case, of Jake Gylenhaal's performance as Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist who eventually becomes obsessed with the Zodiac case. He is acted so well, and in a way that makes us also just as obsessed with the Zodiac as he is. Which brings me to what the movie portrays brilliantly - The extreme obsession to find out new information, and how the Zodiac had such an effect on peoples lives. We see Robert's family leave him due to his constant obsession with the Zodiac. We see Paul Avery, a journalist who gains new popularity as he investigates the murders, which leads him down the drugs route due to the frustation and inability to find the man responsible. The other 5% of the film consists of a total of only four scenes where we see the killer do anything, and they all happen in the first act of the movie. In the second act, the police do their part, and then in the excruciatingly suspenseful third act, it is just Robert Graysmith by himself. The killer's moments are terrifying, and even more so when you realize it also happened in real life, and the precise amount of detail that was put into accurately recreating these events is astonishing, and it gets under your skin whenever you think about it. As well as a disturbing bus threat that the Zodiac makes, and ESPECIALLY John Caroll Lynch's performance as Arthur Leigh Allen, the main suspect. He... is creepy to say the least. He is up there with Hannibal Lecter, and this film is up there with Silence Of The Lambs. I think it is one of the best directed films ever made, and it is perfectly constructed and crafted to the point where it never slows down for me at all. Every scene is edited in a way that makes it interesting. i can't find a single flaw or dull moment in Zodiac. It is a masterpiece and i have to give it a 10/10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
alejandro970Dec 11, 2016
Chilling real life story of the desperate manhunt for a cold-heart serial killer, in which participed journalists and cops. Downey Jr., Ruffalo and Gyllenhall makes remarkables performances.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
VirgonoShakaDec 10, 2016
This is a good movie. The casting is excellent, the mystery is very good, the flow of the narrative is good, and the conclusion is satisfying, but it suffers from some problems, mostly in the secondary characters that seem to be there toThis is a good movie. The casting is excellent, the mystery is very good, the flow of the narrative is good, and the conclusion is satisfying, but it suffers from some problems, mostly in the secondary characters that seem to be there to expand the world, and let you know that the story is moving, but the emotion that these characters are supposed to make really never comes full circle, and it ends up hurting a lot, because the main characters seem to have to flow around these and in a mystery movie, that makes it less real, at least for me. Nevertheless, it is a good movie, and if you like mystery movies, this has an excellent mystery for you. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
marcmyworksJun 21, 2016
The premise of Zodiac is strong, in that a real life unsolved murder case can always be exciting. The film, though wonderfully shot and acted, is slightly too long. My main concern with the film is that it takes place over a period of 25The premise of Zodiac is strong, in that a real life unsolved murder case can always be exciting. The film, though wonderfully shot and acted, is slightly too long. My main concern with the film is that it takes place over a period of 25 years and none of the characters seem to age. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
SupaNova2503Apr 25, 2016
There is not a dull moment in this note-perfect masterpiece. This film will burrow it's way into your mind and leave you as obsessed as the characters. Fantastic performances by Jake Gyllenhall, Robert Downey Jr. and the rest of theThere is not a dull moment in this note-perfect masterpiece. This film will burrow it's way into your mind and leave you as obsessed as the characters. Fantastic performances by Jake Gyllenhall, Robert Downey Jr. and the rest of the supporting cast elevate this film above being simply another serial killer flick based on a true story. Fincher's outstanding direction makes this arguably his best film to date. Do yourself a favour and watch this film if you haven't already. If you have, watch it again! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
bfoore90Oct 8, 2015
While there have been other attempts to create the Zodiac killer's reign of terror on the big screen, none quite compare to David Fincher's Zodiac. The film itself is very long, but it doesn't stop for one second at keeping you entertainedWhile there have been other attempts to create the Zodiac killer's reign of terror on the big screen, none quite compare to David Fincher's Zodiac. The film itself is very long, but it doesn't stop for one second at keeping you entertained and keeping you on the edge of your seat in suspense as Fincher explores every precise little detail, both big and small of the events that take place during the Zodiac's murderous run. The casting of Jake Gyllenhall dazzles as he is easily one of the best actors in the film as you feel his journalistic obsession at finding out who the Zodiac is come to light. The rest of the cast, more specifically Downey Jr and Ruffalo shine as well making this eerily, creepy thriller a welcomed edition to the horror genre. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
Epik_NinnjaMay 23, 2015
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'mZodiac 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MovieManiac83Apr 24, 2015
Zodiac is a police procedural - a sort of souped-up, ultra-long episode of Law & Order. Based on the 1986 "true crime" book by Robert Graysmith, the movie looks back on one of the nation's most sinister unsolved crimes: the NorthernZodiac is a police procedural - a sort of souped-up, ultra-long episode of Law & Order. Based on the 1986 "true crime" book by Robert Graysmith, the movie looks back on one of the nation's most sinister unsolved crimes: the Northern California serial killings by the so-called "Zodiac killer." Although no arrest was ever made and the case now resides on the SFPD's inactive list, many journalists, cops, and investigators had their own "favorite" candidates for the identity of Zodiac. The movie follows the hunt by cartoonist-turned-writer Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) as he seeks to unmask the villain.

To its credit, Zodiac is faithful to its source material. However, from a stylish director like David Fincher, the straightforward, no-frills approach is a little bit of a letdown. The digital photography is sharp, but there's nothing remarkable about it. There's no sense of the cinematic flair that has marked Fincher's previous efforts (even Alien 3, for all of its faults, was visually dynamic). One can count on one hand the number of flourishes apparent during the nearly three-hour running time.

Zodiac does not promise an impartial perspective of the search for the killer. Since it's based on Graysmith's book, it represents the author's viewpoint and the facts are slanted in favor of his preferred suspect. Whether Allen was the Zodiac killer or not is something we'll never know (he died more than a decade ago), but the film stacks the deck in his favor to avoid being completely open ended. Certainly, few who see this film will leave the theater frustrated by the real-world fact that the case remains unsolved.

That Zodiac draws conclusions isn't its problem (to the degree that it has a problem) - the structure is. While the killer is active and the police investigation is in full throttle, there's tension and momentum. It's a cat-and-mouse game. But when the focus shifts to Graysmith, the film shifts into neutral. While there's a certain amount of fascination associated with following an investigator tracking down disintegrating leads and digging through mounds of old records, it's not cinematic, and this at times makes the second half of Zodiac sluggish. Fincher's attempts to create tension (anonymous phone calls with heavy breathing, a creepy film buff who might be dangerous) inject suspense, but the intensity level is low. As thrillers go, most of Zodiac is more of a slow burn than an explosion - not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires patience. The running length is problematic. Fincher is so determined to meticulously recreate Graysmith's investigation that he risks losing his audience. There are numerous dramatically effective sequences during the second half, but the uneven pace results in stagnant periods.

So where is Fincher in all of this? Zodiac has a generic look and feel that is at variance with what we have come to expect from the director. Even Fincher's early music videos had more style than this. That's not to say that the film's direction is inept. Technically, it's fine and there are some nice helicopter shots (and a nifty time lapse sequence of a building being constructed), but there's nothing special about it. It's as if Fincher is saying, "Look! I can do regular stuff too!" There was more menace and atmosphere in Spike Lee's Summer of Sam, another film about a real-life serial killer.

The performances, like Fincher's direction, are competent. Jake Gyllenhaal is understated as usual, but that's appropriate for his low-key character. As Graysmith's obsession grows, Gyllenhaal comes alive. Mark Ruffalo is very good at being petulant but has trouble with sincerity. Robert Downey Jr. once again plays the flamboyant rogue with alcohol/substance abuse problems. Art imitating life, I suppose, but he can do this kind of role in his sleep. Arguably, the best performance belongs to John Carroll Lynch who captures Allen's creepiness without doing anything overt. Brian Cox steals a few scenes as Melvin Belli (he even gets to make a Star Trek reference).

Although the entirety of the movie spans 22 years, from 1969 until 1991, the majority of the scenes transpire in 1969 and the early '70s, and the film is at its most effective during those years. Zodiac becomes fragmented when it starts lurching ahead to highlight the "big moments" in Graysmith's investigation. It's difficult to be too harsh on Zodiac because the subject is interesting (such is often the case with serial killers) and it is fascinating to observe as the investigatory pieces fall into place. Ultimately, however, the length and uneven pacing are stumbling blocks with which an audience must contend. Patient viewers will be rewarded; others may wish for something with less subtlety and more verve.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
DokaluApr 19, 2015
You don't watch Zodiac for a blood full-packaged experience, an orgy of action or an incredible adventure. No, this is a two and a half hours of a thrilling, incredibly well thought, acted and realistic police investigation about a killerYou don't watch Zodiac for a blood full-packaged experience, an orgy of action or an incredible adventure. No, this is a two and a half hours of a thrilling, incredibly well thought, acted and realistic police investigation about a killer named Zodiac in the west of the United States. It is incredibly well scripted. Jake Gyllenhaal is just one of the best actors of the world, and he proves that here. Mark Ruffalo And Robert Downey Jr. are also not far behind.
Everything in the film is perfect (for most people). The scenery, the acting, the directing, the script. Any crime films fan is going to love this very much. I didn't because it's not deniable that it sometimes just drags and get boring. It maybe could have been somewhat shorter. Excellent film, though.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
johnniMar 24, 2015
یه فیلم خوب جنایی بر اساس داستان واقعی که کارگردان سعی داره با طولانی کردنش، شما رو با احساس کلافگی و سردرگمی ناشی از معمای پرونده درگیر کنه.یه فیلم خوب جنایی بر اساس داستان واقعی که کارگردان سعی داره با طولانی کردنش، شما رو با احساس کلافگی و سردرگمی ناشی از معمای پرونده درگیر کنه.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Another_NerdMar 10, 2015
Zodiac is what you would expect a proper brilliant mystery-thriller to be. It is a **** edge of the seat, and more importantly, a film based on curiosity. Anti-climactic, yes, but it's a true story. Very few movies have such a good anti-climax.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
Matsoni93Jan 23, 2015
Zodiac is an intense experience, it has a tense, gripping, ominous, visceral and suspenseful atmosphere throughout, and it features solid acting from its lead actors, and a typically strong direction from Fincher.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
jacobshoffDec 22, 2014
This movie right here is a true edge of your seat thriller. This movie shows you a guy who could be the zodiac but right when you think you've solved it and found the guy who really is the zodiac it turns you in a different direction andThis movie right here is a true edge of your seat thriller. This movie shows you a guy who could be the zodiac but right when you think you've solved it and found the guy who really is the zodiac it turns you in a different direction and shows you another guy and everything you thought you knew about the other guy turns out to be false and not true. Great Suspense Thriller. LOVE IT!!!!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
JohnKristoferDec 22, 2014
Incredible film! Amazingly directed,Fantastically Acted and a well written movie.Zodiac is another movie that surely need attention and enjoy watching it it's suspenseful and so confusing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ydnar4Dec 20, 2014
Zodiac gives the public a lot of insight into a murderer that few people know any facts about. This movie manages to keep you interested regardless of whether or not the facts in it are true. Jake Gyllenhaal was the played the most notableZodiac gives the public a lot of insight into a murderer that few people know any facts about. This movie manages to keep you interested regardless of whether or not the facts in it are true. Jake Gyllenhaal was the played the most notable role in the film but I also enjoyed Mark Ruffalo as well. If you enjoy any sort of crime television show like CSI or Law and Order and you have nearly three hours to spare Zodiac is the movie for you. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
HaithamBAug 29, 2014
Hmm...Zodiac was 162 mins long, the first hour was solid, then I did not know where the movie was going but I knew it won't be as good as the first hour because it felt lost. The performances were very good but the tone of the movie did notHmm...Zodiac was 162 mins long, the first hour was solid, then I did not know where the movie was going but I knew it won't be as good as the first hour because it felt lost. The performances were very good but the tone of the movie did not live up to the grittiness of the story which was distracting. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MovieGuysMar 29, 2014
Knowing the way David Fincher's movies work, I was expecting a twist at the end, and I was disappointed when there wasn't one. However, Zodiac is still terrifyingly creepy, eerie, and its suspense level rises into Hitchcockian territory.Knowing the way David Fincher's movies work, I was expecting a twist at the end, and I was disappointed when there wasn't one. However, Zodiac is still terrifyingly creepy, eerie, and its suspense level rises into Hitchcockian territory. Fincher's refusal to tie up loose ends in the movie as far as leads doesn't seek to confuse; instead, it seeks for the viewer to try to solve this case in his/her head. And for that fact alone, this movie stands out above the average genre fare. Expand
4 of 4 users found this helpful40
All this user's reviews
10
devo-ncJan 22, 2014
Written and flows to pure perfection as good as anything. Performances are top-notch and fincher's exquisite storytelling is dramatic sizzles of fun that involves you in it's business until Zodiac no longer becomes a suspect, it becomes theWritten and flows to pure perfection as good as anything. Performances are top-notch and fincher's exquisite storytelling is dramatic sizzles of fun that involves you in it's business until Zodiac no longer becomes a suspect, it becomes the poetry of determination, charismatic orientation and discussion that rambles without insanity. You don't want it to end; Zodiac reminds us of how movies should be made, and that sums up the best film of 2007. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
8
theseparatorJan 11, 2014
Now that the criminal mastermind flick has become a set type, widely overdone, this film tends to get easily shrugged off as yet another film about an ultra-intelligent serial killer who is always one step ahead of the cops, yes just likeNow that the criminal mastermind flick has become a set type, widely overdone, this film tends to get easily shrugged off as yet another film about an ultra-intelligent serial killer who is always one step ahead of the cops, yes just like Seven. Still though, this film is quite different. Zodiac has nowhere near as much internal darkness bursting from its seams.

But Zodiac is dark, just not Seven dark. Even though Zodiac is still a murder-thriller, it’s tone compared to Seven, is a like a lovely ray of sunshine. Being that this storyline is all loosely based on actual events, enacting the film out in the time period during which it occurred, the late 60’s-early 70’s gives the film a freshness, a nostalgia that seems to come with those decades.

The plot: In an age before mail bombs and anthrax scares, a killer toys with his pursuers by leaving complex clues just above their tracker’s radars, just out of reach of their capabilities, the chase then becomes perpetual, the madness wide spread- reporters, cops, victim’s families, all exposed to the madness. Society engulfing.

The lighting, the darkness, the shadows, the string dissonance, and the rain of course: all hugely important to Fincher’s work, perhaps his most important set of tricks, perhaps they could even be called Finchinian, or would it be Ficheresque? They pop up in all this films.

In the real tense bits we get close, claustrophobic shots, bare-bones dialogue, tense body

language, the potential victim’s fear seeping almost literally thought the screen, then BAM! Scene complete. No sentimentality.

None of Fincher’s tactics in creating suspense come across as clichés. These are textbook lessons in how to frame a successful suspense scene. In a thriller the actor is a part of the puzzle. Like a part of complex musical arrangement, all the players need to play their parts perfectly.

In thrillers the character is thrown into an extreme situation, an abyss created by the filmmaker, and Zodiac, unlike Panic Room, is a bottomless abyss. Great performances are made by the actor’s that find the rawest, ravenous ways to claw their ways out, even if the character fails.

During Zodiac, Jake Gyllehaal was still coming up in the ranks. He had not fully moved on to the badass action hero roles he plays today and in his underling position in the film, as a cartoonist constantly getting in the way of the “real” reporters, he becomes an interesting underdog of a main character, even though he’s not supposed to be the main attraction. A pleasure to watch, we know, and he knows, he is in a subservient role and he never breaks out of it .

Thrillers are the king of film as the symphony is king of music. Great symphonies are difficult to execute. So many elements, so many moving parts, everything must align perfectly, so when that moment of suspense is created, in both thriller and symphony, whether scene of movement, we stand in awe.

Zodiac has those moments.
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
9
SpangleNov 2, 2013
Amazing film. The eerie mood created by Fincher leaves you on the edge of your seat the entire time. There may not be much action, but the story still manages to hook you in and keep you interested for the full 150+ minutes. On that note, itAmazing film. The eerie mood created by Fincher leaves you on the edge of your seat the entire time. There may not be much action, but the story still manages to hook you in and keep you interested for the full 150+ minutes. On that note, it may be 150+ minutes, but it certainly does not feel like that in the least. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
David Fincher delivers a pretty entertaining thriller with "Zodiac". The story follows several men who become obsessed with the infamous Zodiac Killer and his reign of terror over the San Francisco Bay area during the 60s and 70s. The movieDavid Fincher delivers a pretty entertaining thriller with "Zodiac". The story follows several men who become obsessed with the infamous Zodiac Killer and his reign of terror over the San Francisco Bay area during the 60s and 70s. The movie delves deep into what happens to investigators when their cases go unsolved, and how far they'll go to uncover the truth. All in all, I felt that "Zodiac" was a pretty well-crafted film - especially in a technical sense. David Fincher implements a number of convoluted CG techniques to recreate the Zodiac Killer murders and certain areas of San Francisco. Fincher also filmed the majority film using the digital Thomsom Viper camera, something that, at the time, was relatively innovative. The acting was pretty great, I felt that every actor delivered their roles with the utmost accuracty. Also, the script seemed very well written and fairly convincing. As a film, "Zodiac" really does it's job of making you feel as though you are chasing after the elusive killer himself. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
9
cameronmorewoodNov 7, 2012
Zodiac is an ingenious labyrinth of a film that conveniently hits its climax just as we think its slowing down on us. This is great filmmaking from David Fincher, one of the greats of our time.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
RavenousMay 22, 2012
This isn't your typical Hollywood drivel dominated by special effects, and it's not a film for your typical short-attention-span-moviegoers; instead, it's a riveting analysis of the most definitive evidence in the case. I guess some peopleThis isn't your typical Hollywood drivel dominated by special effects, and it's not a film for your typical short-attention-span-moviegoers; instead, it's a riveting analysis of the most definitive evidence in the case. I guess some people found it lacking in the typical blockbuster flash, but in my book that's a really GOOD thing. The characters are all very well-acted, and the screenplay was quite good. As they say, the truth is stranger than fiction, and this presentation of the Zodiac case is truly as compelling as they come. Excellent job. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
spadenxJan 1, 2012
I thought it was good and it did keep your interest through out the film. Yet it didnt offer anything new to the legend that is the Zodiac. Just was really just a re-telling of an old theory that was fitted for the big screen. The starI thought it was good and it did keep your interest through out the film. Yet it didnt offer anything new to the legend that is the Zodiac. Just was really just a re-telling of an old theory that was fitted for the big screen. The star studded cast definently raised this film above what it should have been and the acting was solid through out. Overall it was worth the watch if you want to understand the Zodiac more but if you are familiar with it then chances are you wont learn anything new. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
Potter17Dec 10, 2011
Treating James Vanderbilt's screenplay with a natural talent of a capable filmmaker by mixing suspenseful sequences with haunting pauses, David Fincher makes of Zodiac a good addition to the thriller genre.
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
9
Alexander_FredDec 8, 2011
Zodiac is a near perfect film. While it takes on the same manner of story telling as All the President's Men, it does not quite match the classic film's essence, but all in all it becomes something great. It is a rarity to see a film about aZodiac is a near perfect film. While it takes on the same manner of story telling as All the President's Men, it does not quite match the classic film's essence, but all in all it becomes something great. It is a rarity to see a film about a serial killer in today's market not filled with gore and violence for the sake of gore and violence. It also becomes rarer when that film focuses on the characters on the outside looking in: the news reporters, the police, etc. Again it becomes rarer when the actors have the capacity to truly bring out their respective character's persona and do so not just well, but beyond the viewer's expectations. Zodiac manages to do all of this while blending together terrific directing and a pace that just flows with the two and a half hour length so that the film remains an interesting, though all around disturbing, tale of humanity's deepest depths of violence and hatred rather than a sluggish bore, even without a focus on gallons of blood and severed limbs. In the end, this is a film that stands in contrast to Saw, Hostel, and all the other blood baths being pushed in front of us. It is a film that is actually good, perhaps more than good. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
LDMNov 9, 2011
Incredible film. Suspenseful, engrossing, chilling. Everything about it (acting, script, cinematography, score) is brilliant. Fincher at his absolute best.
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
6
bram29Oct 11, 2011
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.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
8
CRLAug 15, 2011
This is a hard movie for me to rate, for a myriad of reasons. Zodiac is based on a true story; Robert Graysmith's book of the same name. To be able to take such a convoluted story and condense it into a movie is an achievement in itself. TheThis is a hard movie for me to rate, for a myriad of reasons. Zodiac is based on a true story; Robert Graysmith's book of the same name. To be able to take such a convoluted story and condense it into a movie is an achievement in itself. The acting is fantastic from all parties, with Jake Gyllenhaal playing the main role of both naive cartoonist and possessed civilian-detective to a fault. The script is good; it even manages to throw in a laugh here or there, and the cinematography, at some points, is excellent. Then there's the plot, which could easily be separated into two (and a half) parts. There's the beginning, while the murders are happening and the case it hot, which to me, this is easily the weaker portion of the film. The story at that point is slow and laborious, with too many people saying too many different things each with not enough airtime. The middle (the half part) is the three seconds the film takes to jump four years, during which it becomes a cold case. Then comes the end, which is entirely focused on Robert Graysmith's (Gyllenhaal) hunt for the Zodiac Killer. Not only then does Zodiac become suspenseful, but it almost reaches the Olympian heights of Fincher's other serial killer thriller, Se7en. In the end, the pros outweigh the cons, and leave you with a movie that is a bit too long and just maybe a bit too true... but nonetheless an entertaining and sometimes fascinating film. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
RoscoMay 9, 2011
A work of genius in storytelling by David Fincher in what is a phenominal adaption of the killings of the Zodiac killer. Clever casting for the lead roles leads to some outstanding performances by Jake Gyllenhall, Robert Downey Jr. and MarkA work of genius in storytelling by David Fincher in what is a phenominal adaption of the killings of the Zodiac killer. Clever casting for the lead roles leads to some outstanding performances by Jake Gyllenhall, Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo. The film itself is long, some might say to long but the every detail, big and small is so precise and is key to Fincher conveying his take on events and also in showing the effects the Zodiac has on each character. But don't let how long the film is put you off because its so compelling and intense yet intriguing that it keeps you following the story and wanting to see whats going to happen next. Ofcourse the main point of story is based on the murders of the Zodiac killer but the main theme is how the killings affect each character and gradually wares them down with initially, the lack evidence to identify a suspect and then later to make a proper conviction. Downey dazzles as a journalist investigating the murders that brings him new found popularity which leads him down the drugs route due to the frustration and inability to find the man responsible, Ruffalo is is fantastic form and delivers a magestic performance as a cop tasked with finding the Zodiac, Gyllenhall is the surprise of the show for me, his portray of a strange and peculiar yet inspiring cartoonist, Robert, is tremendous, but Finchers choice in John Carroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Arthur was genius as his depiction of the prime suspect is fabulously creepy and encapsulates the reason why he is the prime suspect to perfection. All in all Zodiac is a truely exceptional piece of filmmaking and something that you simply cannot afford to miss out on. Expand
8 of 8 users found this helpful80
All this user's reviews
7
sreekanthsnairFeb 17, 2011
A good movie....
climax is not up to the mark...
well narrated... every fincher fan may be disappointed at last with such an end...
but based on a true story..only this could be possible...
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
FilipeM.Oct 13, 2009
Right after I've seen the movie, I felt compelled to come here and leave the maximum rating. Ok, it's a looooooong movie, but thanks to Fincher's direction never gets boring and when you think that it's almost in the end, Right after I've seen the movie, I felt compelled to come here and leave the maximum rating. Ok, it's a looooooong movie, but thanks to Fincher's direction never gets boring and when you think that it's almost in the end, you get a new thrill. Besides that, there's the great character performed by Downey Jr. that chew the scenery by outstanding acting in his scenes. Seriously, if you're still reading this, don't waste any more time and GO WATCH THIS MOVIE! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
GavinC.Aug 20, 2009
'Zodiac' displays both gripping suspense and comedy while introducing a mix between 'scary film' and 'murder mystery film'.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
HenriM.Jul 29, 2009
The most chilling film I've seen in recent years. Not only does Fincher meticulously recreates the atmosphere and mood of the 70's, he gives a brilliant insight on obsession, and examines how the murder case took over people's The most chilling film I've seen in recent years. Not only does Fincher meticulously recreates the atmosphere and mood of the 70's, he gives a brilliant insight on obsession, and examines how the murder case took over people's lives. It's also technically superb, with great performances all around. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChessLMar 4, 2009
This was a great movie in my perspective, all those that think this movie was a total shrek, well you can all suck it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LeeM.Oct 24, 2008
The best thriller of the last 10 years by some distance.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DavidApr 19, 2008
Brilliant. Just because it isn't a typical slam-blam chaotic action-filled, gory serial killer movie, doesn't mean it won't send chills up your spine at times. Zodiac is at once a newspaper movie, a serial killer film, and a Brilliant. Just because it isn't a typical slam-blam chaotic action-filled, gory serial killer movie, doesn't mean it won't send chills up your spine at times. Zodiac is at once a newspaper movie, a serial killer film, and a meditation on the often excruciatingly frustrating results from hours and hours of police work. See it now. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JayM.Apr 15, 2008
This strange, obsessive film by David Fincher is the perfect match of material and directorial personality. Given to compulsive retakes and meticulous preparation and long shoots, Mr. Fincher finds his alter ego in his characters compulsions This strange, obsessive film by David Fincher is the perfect match of material and directorial personality. Given to compulsive retakes and meticulous preparation and long shoots, Mr. Fincher finds his alter ego in his characters compulsions yielding a masterwork nearly unmatched in recent cinema. One of the 3 or 4 best films of 2007. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
JohnOMar 9, 2008
This is superb!! If you like intelligent murder thrillers you won't be disappointed.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
MikeP.Feb 20, 2008
Beautifully done, has me guessing the whole way not much better movies out there!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
ScottS.Feb 13, 2008
Great film a little complicated to follow in places due to the many names and dates used but it will keep you guessing throughout. Highly enjoyable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JayH.Feb 6, 2008
What an excellent movie. Great plot, beautifully written and always interesting, although at times it gets a bit tiresome, but not often. A good fifteen to thirty minutes could have been shaved off the total time. Great cast works well What an excellent movie. Great plot, beautifully written and always interesting, although at times it gets a bit tiresome, but not often. A good fifteen to thirty minutes could have been shaved off the total time. Great cast works well together, excellent acting. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BorisGJan 16, 2008
What a horrible movie. Me and my friend just sat there waiting for it to end. This was the most boring film I have ever seen, par none. It felt like it was 6 hours long.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
0
MikeDec 28, 2007
I like movies where I have to think. but this movie was just soooo boring!!! After an 1 hour of watching this borefest, I had enough!!
1 of 3 users found this helpful
7
JaredC.Oct 27, 2007
The film kind of carried on a bit once it reached 1hr and 30mins. Well, first of all, they know who the killer is and why won't you just arrest him for cryin' out loud. All it was from that point was completely pointless The film kind of carried on a bit once it reached 1hr and 30mins. Well, first of all, they know who the killer is and why won't you just arrest him for cryin' out loud. All it was from that point was completely pointless information that Jake Gyllenhaal gave to Mark Ruffalo that his house was fifty-feet from his house, well we don't care. Though the first hour was pretty interesting and Robert Downey Jr. is hilarious in this crime/thriller. In the main menu it had the Jaws music and sounded so cool and creepy at the same time. Well, I was disappointed to the fact that all the music was was someone going: dudududu. OH please! Just get on with it Fincher. But other than that it was a very entertaining gripping picture. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
SteveKSep 19, 2007
First off, this is a detective movie, NOT a slasher/thriller/horror movie. If you go in expecting a slasher, after the first 30 minutes or so, you will be disappointed. Fincher is a master story-teller. It's fascinating, gripping stuff. First off, this is a detective movie, NOT a slasher/thriller/horror movie. If you go in expecting a slasher, after the first 30 minutes or so, you will be disappointed. Fincher is a master story-teller. It's fascinating, gripping stuff. It takes a more mature film-watching pallate, meaning there are not a lot of car crashes and special effects. Teeny-boppers who are overstimulated on MTV probably will not enjoy this one. The suspense is woven into the story appropriately adding a chilling menace that is present throughout the pic. Great movie, another triumph for David Fincher. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RobertRSep 13, 2007
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 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful
9
ScottW.Aug 24, 2007
Deep, long story and with a frightfull grip, Zodiac is a movie that you can get lost in. Its what movies are for.You will become obsessed yourself, with the case during the show right up to the end. If you like David Fincher films and have Deep, long story and with a frightfull grip, Zodiac is a movie that you can get lost in. Its what movies are for.You will become obsessed yourself, with the case during the show right up to the end. If you like David Fincher films and have not checked out Zodiac. Please do. This one is one of his best. A 9.5 for me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JosakAug 20, 2007
I absolutely loved this movie. I rented it and watched it 3 times over the weekend (can't remember the last time I've done that). Absolutely gripping; it keeps you hooked from start to finish. Everything about it is pure quality: I absolutely loved this movie. I rented it and watched it 3 times over the weekend (can't remember the last time I've done that). Absolutely gripping; it keeps you hooked from start to finish. Everything about it is pure quality: the way its constructed, the acting, everything plays out perfectly. Best of all, it keeps you at the edge of your seat wanting to know what happens next. And the fact that it's a true story and the killer was never caught, makes it all the more suspenseful and scary. This is my favorite movie of the year and probably the best I've seen in long while. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AnonymousMCAug 16, 2007
Oh my god, total snorefest. I wish I would have spent that two and a half to three hours doing something productive instead of watching this piece of junk. You watch a guy read books and talk to people for 99.9% of the movie, the other 0.1%Oh my god, total snorefest. I wish I would have spent that two and a half to three hours doing something productive instead of watching this piece of junk. You watch a guy read books and talk to people for 99.9% of the movie, the other 0.1% is seeing the actual killer do something. Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful
8
ChrisVAug 16, 2007
This movie isnt the best ever seen, its very long, and its entertaining, just because it was a true story, dont see it if you think you are gonna see Michael Myers in accion
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarcosF.Aug 16, 2007
One of the best American movies of recent years, a deep regard into the United States after the September 11th (even if it runs in previous decades)
1 of 2 users found this helpful
8
jwAug 11, 2007
Does anybody else feel that hiring Robert Downey, Jr. to play a brilliant but hopelessly cynical and sarcastic addict is something like hiring the world's best hacker to design hacker-proof software? He has a hopelessly unfair advantage Does anybody else feel that hiring Robert Downey, Jr. to play a brilliant but hopelessly cynical and sarcastic addict is something like hiring the world's best hacker to design hacker-proof software? He has a hopelessly unfair advantage in that respect, but the results are always, ALWAYS entertaining. Observed at a safe distance, he is one of our best actors. And that label can be extended to Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo, I think. One is under-appreciated for everything but Brokeback Mountain, and the other is just flat under-appreciated. Nice to see Edwards again, too - he pairs well with Ruffalo. The movie itself is wound perfectly. The horrific stabbings in Napa are all the prompt one needs to remain tense through even the most mundane scenes to follow. Surely friends and family of the "few" true victims have no trouble seeing Zodiac as more than just an underachieving kook. The manic frustration of all involved is easily understood when framed this way. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JakeV.B.Aug 9, 2007
Fincher's best film to date. His depiction of the havoc wreaked by Zodiak upon those given the task or personal obsession of catching him, in many ways psychologically akin to The Shinning, is so devastating that he wisely gives little Fincher's best film to date. His depiction of the havoc wreaked by Zodiak upon those given the task or personal obsession of catching him, in many ways psychologically akin to The Shinning, is so devastating that he wisely gives little time to the actual killings. We watch the pursuing characters as their task gradually grinds them down, and Fincher's attention to the details, large and small, reveals a confidence in his choice of the film's direction which places him among the very best of his profession. Gambling with a fairly long running time, Fincher's excellent cast executes the director's plan almost flawlessly. I've never been a fan of Mark Ruffalo or his acting, but Fincher puts him squarely in the spotlight and he delivers the performance of his life. Some may see this film as a boring, overlong police procedural , lacking the intensity generated by the expected blood-letting, but I don't.. Fincher's made some very decent films, but nothing like this. It's a renewed pleasure to find a director whose films are identified by his name a la Stanley Kubrick. Now let's see if Fincher can consistently produce a product at least equal to this film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
MattKAug 1, 2007
Excellent movie, one of the best i've seen in a long time. FIncher is back! Only complaint is that there are no special features/bonuses on this dvd.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
RD.Aug 1, 2007
Hi I liked the movie. Gyllenhall, Downey Jr and Ruffalo's performances are fabulous. But the scene stealer is John Carroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Allen. Although, he is there for only 5-6 minutes he is too creepy. Brilliant movie by Hi I liked the movie. Gyllenhall, Downey Jr and Ruffalo's performances are fabulous. But the scene stealer is John Carroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Allen. Although, he is there for only 5-6 minutes he is too creepy. Brilliant movie by Fincher who also directed the brilliant Seven and Fight Club(1999). Although it is a bit slow, it is rewarding. DO not expect anything, you will be singing its raves. Those who way it is bakwaas are people who either do not like such intricate and grim movies or those who have very short attention span(no offense to anybody, it is your taste). Brilliant! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
AndyGJul 28, 2007
It's true that this movie is very finely crafted - but it's also too long. Technically, nothing to complain about. Good acting by all the leads, nice job recreating a 60's /70's atmosphere etc.. It's just that, at It's true that this movie is very finely crafted - but it's also too long. Technically, nothing to complain about. Good acting by all the leads, nice job recreating a 60's /70's atmosphere etc.. It's just that, at some point, in spite of yourself, you might actually start to feel bored. Still a decent movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
DanB.Jul 26, 2007
Really good, engrossing and interesting... I'm kind of surprised it didn't do better. And I saw it on a plane, too, with distractions--it *still* got me. Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. are great, too.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JoeyBJul 24, 2007
That wondrous rarity - a studio backed auteur masterpiece. Brilliant.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JavierBJul 22, 2007
Really long movie but an interesting and good film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NikJul 15, 2007
When I went to see Zodiac, I went alone, driven by boredom; at the time I just wanted something to do, so I thought I'd go see a movie, didn't think there was anything playing, but I noticed Zodiac had very favorable reviews, so I When I went to see Zodiac, I went alone, driven by boredom; at the time I just wanted something to do, so I thought I'd go see a movie, didn't think there was anything playing, but I noticed Zodiac had very favorable reviews, so I decided to see that, but I was NOT expecting what I saw. Zodiac is one of the most finely crafted motion pictures of all-time, I can't believe that's not even more praised by the critics and audience circles. The film is absolute brilliance, armed only with what was written in the books, and what the evidence tells us, the film manages to keep you mesmerized throughout it's entire 150+ running time (that is if you're mature enough to handle it). And even though i went in knowing that there wouldn't be any conclusion, somehow the film kept making me think "they're gonna fin him this time". And even though they didn't, I came out not remembering the last time I was so satisfied by a film. Probably the best I've seen since Sideways (which came out late in 04'). Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
AitorE.May 21, 2007
Zodiac is more than a thriller, it´s definetly THE thriller. Fincher builds a huge, monumental story where there isn´t such a thing. He invades your mind with tones of information that never shows itself confusing, but Zodiac is more than a thriller, it´s definetly THE thriller. Fincher builds a huge, monumental story where there isn´t such a thing. He invades your mind with tones of information that never shows itself confusing, but brilliantly dispensed. Mark Ruffalo demonstrates once again the great actor he is, while Jake Gyllenhaal stand the weight of a relevant role efficiently. Summaring, Zodiac cannot be considered anything but a masterpiece of a director that loves his work and cinema. (the lake couple assassination, best filmed murder in history). Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
ChadS.May 2, 2007
They started the meeting without him. You hear the off-camera voice of the editor-in-chief as Robert(Jake Gyllenhaal) enters the San Francisco Chronicle building; a pan finally delivers him into the conference room. He's tardy, but it They started the meeting without him. You hear the off-camera voice of the editor-in-chief as Robert(Jake Gyllenhaal) enters the San Francisco Chronicle building; a pan finally delivers him into the conference room. He's tardy, but it doesn't matter. The movie can get by without him, for now. "Zodiac", up to this point, is a police procedural and a workplace drama. How the screenplay transforms the cartoonist into a pro-active character for the stretch run is what makes "Zodiac" so exciting; to see the low-man at the Chronicle emerge out of Paul Avery's shadow. "Zodiac" is really an underdog story. It's kind of like watching "Rudy". Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
AndrewK.Apr 8, 2007
A great film from Fincher. No, it does not have the stylistic cinematography of some of his other films. But I believe that he uses whatever style is appropriate to the topic. This film does have a few really cool shots, specifically the A great film from Fincher. No, it does not have the stylistic cinematography of some of his other films. But I believe that he uses whatever style is appropriate to the topic. This film does have a few really cool shots, specifically the tracking shot from above on the taxi cab, and the shot on the Golden Gate bridge. Jake Gyllenhaal is perfect for his part. He has always been a natural for the wide-eyed, innocent youth, while not being boring or cliche. Mark Ruffalo gave the other standout performance in this piece. I liked Robert Downey Jr, but I can't help feeling that this is the same part that he always plays now. And why does someone in recovery constantly play characters that are using? The story itself is captivating, especially for one, like myself, who is completely unfamiliar with the story. I was not even aware of the Dirty Harry connection as I have never seen the film. So that was another interesting tidbit. I loved the muted color tones that made one feel like one was back in the 60's/70's. I find it strange that people complain about wasting half an hour "pursuing a lead that goes nowhere." That lead, if I understand correctly, is the same man that most people believe to have been the actual Zodiac killer, as we discover by the end of the film. The violence was played down, except for one or two scenes that were truly terrifying. I didn't mind that we were focusing on Robert Graysmith (Gyllenhaal) rather than someone else, as he's the only one who never gave up on trying to put it all together. He wrote the book, and it only seems logical to follow his voyage through the events. Many solid performances from character actors in small rolls, namely Brian Cox and Philip Baker Hall. I never felt like the film was too long. It kept me hooked the entire time. Maybe some people have a shorter attention span or maybe it's just not their cup of tea. Also, one should not expect a director to go on making the exact same type of movie throughout his/her career. A director, in fact, any artist, needs to grow and explore new directions. I applaud Fincher for giving this story the exact direction that it required: nothing over the top, with an underlying tension and unease throughout the entire film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
[Anonymous]Apr 3, 2007
The movie is too long and there is no action. The story is too confusing, though Robert Downey Jr. is a GREAT actor, and becuase of him we didn't fall asleep in the cinema.
1 of 5 users found this helpful
10
DavidL.Mar 25, 2007
Go into this film with the right attitude, expecting to have to think and you'll find one of the most rewarding films of the past 10 years.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
MarkB.Mar 23, 2007
Director David Fincher is certainly both a sick puppy and an odd duck. Who else would begin Alien3 by, in the first few minutes, unceremoniously killing off little Newt, the surrogate daughter figure that Sigourney Weaver's Riplet spent Director David Fincher is certainly both a sick puppy and an odd duck. Who else would begin Alien3 by, in the first few minutes, unceremoniously killing off little Newt, the surrogate daughter figure that Sigourney Weaver's Riplet spent all of Aliens trying to protect? Who else deserves the credit/ blame for Se7en, the inadvertent father of the torture-porn genre that later brought us Saw and all its sequels and knockoffs? Who else's directorial vision could mesh so perfectly with Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk's VERY uniquely quirky, nightmarish and nihilistic voice? And the most fascinating thing about Fincher is that with Zodiac he proves himself to be a total trickster; just when you think you've got him pegged as a tremendously skilled but thoroughly heartless sadist, he upends all expectations by making his most humane movie to date...and it's about a serial killer! Long, obsessively meticulous and thoroughly fascinating, Fincher's Zodiac isn't as concerned about the Zodiac Killer's murders (which are depicted with extreme empathy for the victims) but with the trail of LIVING casualties left in his wake as newspapermen and cops, unable to track him down or absolutely identify him, suffer the destruction of careers, marriages and physical and mental health in their obsessive, Ahab-like pursuit. (San Fransisco Chronicle reporter Paul Avery, played by Robert Downey Jr. in a performance that certainly would've netted him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination next year had this movie been released a little later and made a lot more, arguably suffers the most, but it's hard not to watch the same paper's editorial cartoonist Robert graysmith, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, torpedo his ten-year marriage by completely ignoring it in pursuit of Zodiac without concluding that his obsession is the most disturbing...especially given that his wife, Melanie, is played by Chloe Sevigny who, wearing overalls in half the movie and huge glasses throughout, would handily defeat any litter of kittens in an adorableness runoff.) The tragedy of Avery's, Graysmith's and police inspector David Toschi's (Mark Ruffalo) repeatedly frustrated attempts to nail Zodiac's identity lies in the time period; in just a few years the use of advanced computer cross-checking and other capabilities, extremely sensitive DNA testing capacities that would've probably caught Zodiac's slightest glitch, and all sorts of other aids to detection that all CSI viewers thoroughly take for granted would have all but assured that they'd get their man and make it stick. That's why the genius of Fincher's direction lies in his making this as much a period piece as any Jane Austen adaptation; just as Fincher cleverly communicated our culture's dependence on and worship of consumerism in Fight Club by including a brand name in nearly every shot, here he features in almost every frame a visual or verbal reference to an objest or item that would be totally at home thirty or so years ago but totally alien today. (My two favorite references: a comment by the San Fransisco police noting that one of their offices hasn't got one of those newfangled fax machines...and Avery, at a pivotal point, playing around with a brand new, almost unbearably exciting 1975 video game known as "Pong".) Admittedly, sitting through a nearly three hour movie dealing with a series of crimes that never quite gets solved, therefore effectively denying the audience an emotional release it's perfectly reasonable to want and expect at the movies is a tough way to spend a Saturday night after a long hard work week, so this movie's disappointing box office was not only inevitable but somewhat understandable. But to those who take the chance (and who later rally around this film, making it the cult item it'll undoubtedly become) Zodiac is not only one of the best films about the 1970s ever made (without so much as a single Bee Gees record in it) but can comfortably be mentioned in a breath with Robert Altman's Nashville and Francis Ford Coppola's first two Godfather movies as one of the great epics OF the 1970s. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EricC.Mar 23, 2007
David Fincher is a very interesting director. Some of his films have been horribly under rated (Alien 3) and some over rated (Panic Room). But he showed definatitively that he was a special director with Seven. Now he has shown that he is David Fincher is a very interesting director. Some of his films have been horribly under rated (Alien 3) and some over rated (Panic Room). But he showed definatitively that he was a special director with Seven. Now he has shown that he is one of the best. He doesn't really revive his signature bleak-and-gritty style, but simple camera and lighting tricks, while nothing new, were impressively done. But what really made this movie was the cast, all amazingly casted. Jake Gyllenhaal was amazing, and if you don't see how than you should go back to Wild Hogs and Norbit. Here is his best outing since his amazing performance as Donnie Darko (if you've never seen it, don't judge it). And it's too bad for the people who didn't have the patience to enjoy to wild story. Quick and underplayed plot twists kept things very exciting. I can't wait for Fincher's next project. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohnR.Mar 19, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DanH.Mar 18, 2007
This is a good movie with a ton of high-end actors. The directing is professional and to-the-point. The only reason I couldn't give it a better score is becasue of Jake Gyllenhaal as the lead. Don't get me wrong, I think Gyllenhaal This is a good movie with a ton of high-end actors. The directing is professional and to-the-point. The only reason I couldn't give it a better score is becasue of Jake Gyllenhaal as the lead. Don't get me wrong, I think Gyllenhaal is a good actor, but he just doesn't match the role he played in this movie. He's too "leading-man", especially for the part of a introverted cartoonist with an obsessive tedency. Gyllenhaal was a poor casting decision. Other than that, I highly recommend this film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JimD.Mar 16, 2007
This is not your typical Hollywood
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
PaulG.Mar 15, 2007
My attention never flagged, even though the movie approached three hours. That in itself is high commendation. A great detective story. Wall Street Journal's Morgenstern has his head stuck in the stock reports.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MarcK.Mar 14, 2007
A little on the long side, but it was able to keep my interest throughout. Just a fascinating and interesting story...I hope they were faithful to what the actual events were.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EliasK.Mar 13, 2007
They should have paid me to sit through that bullsh.t.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
6
BilB.Mar 12, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
KevinR.Mar 12, 2007
The best movie thus far in 2007. It suceeds where Black Dahlia failed visually and thrills the audience every step of the way.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JoeyM.Mar 12, 2007
A surprisingly gripping and well acted account of a dark period in California history. What was fascinating for me was remembering how different it was back in that period. Pulling over because somebody was honking at you? Not being A surprisingly gripping and well acted account of a dark period in California history. What was fascinating for me was remembering how different it was back in that period. Pulling over because somebody was honking at you? Not being surprised when they offered to help? Not driving off when a stranger comes driving up? Zodiac was able to take advantage of people because they didn't expect that type of behavior from strangers back then - and he is, at least in part, responsible for the fact that we just don't trust each other as much as we used to. A fascinating film about a cultural turning point. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BlakeJ.Mar 11, 2007
I can guarantee two things to the avid movie goer about this movie: the first, it will grip you at the beginning, the second, you WILL fall in love with Robert Downey Jr. Not to mention that you are bound to get freaked out by all of the I can guarantee two things to the avid movie goer about this movie: the first, it will grip you at the beginning, the second, you WILL fall in love with Robert Downey Jr. Not to mention that you are bound to get freaked out by all of the killings. Director David Fincher does it again, his camera work is worth your money alone, not to mention the fact that he somehow gets great performances out of everyone he puts on screen. The second half of the movie drags on, I think it is supposed to however, since the end of the investigation dragged on for years. It was most definitely unique...And most definitely worth seeing, Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
DWillyMar 11, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DanF.Mar 10, 2007
To be honest, I did check my watch, but only because I thought we were hitting the climax (which we were an hour away from.) Beautiful looking, never boring, great performances, SPECTACULAR storyline (and huge bonus that its true.)
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
PeterM.Mar 10, 2007
This was a great movie, from the groundbreaking filming methods and shots, to the great acting from Robert Downey Jr. It did not feel two and a half hours at all! The movie moved along at a perfect pace, and was never difficult to follow. This was a great movie, from the groundbreaking filming methods and shots, to the great acting from Robert Downey Jr. It did not feel two and a half hours at all! The movie moved along at a perfect pace, and was never difficult to follow. The killings were brutal, but did not affect the mood off the movie too drastically. The music was fitting, and the cinematography was groundbreaking to say the least. The scene on the Golden Gate Bridge was incredible! GREAT MOVIE. Highly Recomended. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
EricW.Mar 9, 2007
As a huge fan of Se7en I couldn't wait to see David Fincher's latest film, Zodiac. After over two and a half hours of the movie I walked out of the theater stunned
1 of 5 users found this helpful
4
GS.Mar 9, 2007
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 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
1 of 4 users found this helpful
9
BillyS.Mar 8, 2007
No way in hell can you make a 2 hour and 40 minute movie about an unsolved serial-killer case that spends nearly two and a half hours on the investigation without seeing the killer but focuses on its effect on the two cops and two reporters No way in hell can you make a 2 hour and 40 minute movie about an unsolved serial-killer case that spends nearly two and a half hours on the investigation without seeing the killer but focuses on its effect on the two cops and two reporters who become consumed with finding him, no way could the story grow more and more gripping with a hypnotic intensity, no way could the setting of Snn Francisco in the late 60's and early 70's be so perfectly recreated to the finest detail in its production design, music, and cinematography, and no way could Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr. and Brian Cox give award worthy performances when everyone is waiting to see the Zodiac Killer. No way! What's that you say? David Fincher directed it... oh, i see, nevermind. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
PoojaMar 8, 2007
I thought it was a great movie. The plot was great and the acting was great. The only complaint is that it was a little bit to long. If it was slightly short it would have been a 10
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JonS.Mar 8, 2007
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
WillieGreenMar 7, 2007
***may contain slight spoilers if not familiar with the subject matter start to finish***

pros: masterfully executed, easily among the best work to date from primary cast & crew (downey, ruffalo, fincher), great suspense during the sparse
***may contain slight spoilers if not familiar with the subject matter start to finish***

pros: masterfully executed, easily among the best work to date from primary cast & crew (downey, ruffalo, fincher), great suspense during the sparse moments when it's allowed to creep in, was rather painless to watch despite the running time (save for a few flinching scenes), and engaging start to finish

cons: not as cohesive or gripping as I had hoped, most will find it a bit too long, the built-in realities leave viewers aching for more progress and closure throughout, meanders a bit in some spots, and ultimately I think it remains to be seen whether zodiac becomes the instant classic that all the short-term praise would seem to suggest

well done, but ultimately less memorable than something like se7en (or lambs) due to a lack of several essential hooks you'll find among the instant classics in the genre - the great news is I can say that I look forward to more work like this from both the director and some cast members
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
WestoMar 7, 2007
for anyone expecting to sit down for a 90 minute hyper-stylized blood orgy, i can understand some people checking their watches. but if you go in ready to invest three hours in an intricate and brilliantly sequenced crime drama i guarantee for anyone expecting to sit down for a 90 minute hyper-stylized blood orgy, i can understand some people checking their watches. but if you go in ready to invest three hours in an intricate and brilliantly sequenced crime drama i guarantee you will be totally blown away. i loved everything about this movie; the pacing, the acting, the cinematography, and screenplay were all tuned to perfection. i have as much OCD and ADD as the rest of those living in western society and this movie still kept me on the edge of my seat just through the sheer passion of the characters themselves. fight club and se7en were great of course but i thought this really stood out as a masterpiece for david fincher and a mature piece of really highly focused storytelling that doesn't drag for a second. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
DonaldR.Mar 6, 2007
Dark, detailed and dreamlike, Zodiac creeps into you like a ghost. I have not stopped thinking of this film since seeing it. Fincher has done a brilliant job of capturing everything about the time and place of this story, and his actors have Dark, detailed and dreamlike, Zodiac creeps into you like a ghost. I have not stopped thinking of this film since seeing it. Fincher has done a brilliant job of capturing everything about the time and place of this story, and his actors have delivered performances that are wise and nuanced. This is magnificent filmmaking and one of the best, satisfying films I've ever seen. Bravo! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful