Zodiac holds up better than ever 10 years later | movie review

David Fincher’s 2008 film Zodiac has grown to be one of his best, if not one of the best cinematic offerings of the century.

To fully appreciate Zodiac, you have to watch it more than once. On the first viewing, you should focus on the story, the plot, and the red herrings. The twisting tale of the Zodiac killer — a serial killer who tortured Northern California with his sick games for more than a decade — is one that is not easily unraveled. It’s a disorienting story. And director David Fincher understands that. He puts you into the headspace of the characters by playing with space and time.

They’re who you should focus on next. How do they grow throughout the story? Why do they make the decisions they make? It’s not always an easy question to answer. Lastly, look at how the film was put together. An entire semester of cinematography can be taught from this one movie. DP Harris Savides uses a neutral color palette that feels appropriate for the Bay Area setting, but somehow he finds empathy in the characters. Coupled with Angus Wall’s emotive editing, it immerses you in the world. However, it all goes back to the way Fincher mixes these elements. So, watch it a fourth time. Then you’ll understand why this is not only Fincher’s best film but one of the best movies of our generation.

The tale of the Zodiac killer was never one that would easily transfer to film. Despite the violence of the attacks, the publicity of them, and the rigor in which the investigation was handled, in reality, the breaks came slowly and there was never a clear progression when it came to the case. If anything, the most cinematic facet of the story was the multiple red herrings during the investigation. So, how did David Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt fill out the nearly three-hour running time? While the story of the Zodiac was a huge part of the movie, as was the investigation — a large chunk feels like All the President’s Men or Heat — the main focus is how the investigation fundamentally changes the characters. 

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT

Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) frames the story as a San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist who is on the periphery of the Zodiac case when the newspaper receives a letter from the killer demanding that a puzzle is published in the paper. Eccentric journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) takes lead on the case for the Chronicle while SFPD Inspector David Toschy (Mark Ruffalo) takes hold of the police investigation.

The first half of the movie plays like a police procedural — take Heat or The French Connection — and newspaper drama — like All the President’s Men or the more recent Spotlight. It’s a thrilling whirlwind of facts and dead ends and terrifying attacks that increasingly adds to the sense of helplessness with the case. However, the second half becomes one man’s obsession — Robert Graysmith, specifically — with finding the truth. Not for any higher purpose. Simply because he craves the answer and eventually needs it.

Zodiac is a story that isn’t inherently cinematic. There isn’t a linear storyline. Essentially we follow information as it’s traded and moved from place to place, which is why Fincher makes the decision to bring it down to the character-level. A huge part of that is due to Savides’ near iconic cinematography. It’s kinetic at some points — the first Zodiac letter arriving at the Chronicle office for example. Other times, it’s emotive — Graysmith speaking with a potential suspect in his home is a masterclass in using camera movements to build tension. It’s the combination of the two that paces the movie in a way that makes it feel like there’s more action happening than there actually is.

That doesn’t mean that its set pieces aren’t thrilling. Those scenes demonstrate Fincher’s patience — it contributes to the nearly 3-hour running time without feeling unnecessary. Take the scene where the Zodiac attacks an unsuspecting couple lounging by a lake. The way it unfolds is slow and deliberate. Calculating, like the Zodiac himself. And unlike Seven, his other crime procedural, the scene is almost devoid of cinematic flair. The scene is scoreless and the cinematography is extremely objective. It’s unsettlingly emotionless — like the killer.

Robert Downey Jr. mixes his carefree attitude perfectly with genuine journalistic curiosity. As the character evolved during the film, Downey is able to maintain a ghost of the character’s previous life to heartbreaking effect. The same goes for Mark Ruffalo. In particular, his chemistry with Anthony Edwards is what makes his character and performance work. Chloe Sevigny also does great work in her limited screentime, which still has an impact.

However, the two performances really stand out. John Carroll Lynch — who does similar creepy work in The Invitation — sends chills down your spine with his enigmatic portrayal that becomes more sickening each moment he’s on the screen. Jake Gyllenhaal, on the other hand, is endearing, which is essential to the role and to the last half of the movie. As Graysmith falls further into his obsession with the Zodiac, it becomes easier to feel alienated by his character. Instead, you feel sympathetic for him. His hunger for the truth is infectious.

I think the acclaim for Zodiac only increases from here. Ten years ago, the film was received rapturously. However, the weight of its cinematic importance has only begun to be appreciated. Even with more popular movies like Fight Club and Gone Girl, and more uniformly acclaimed movies like The Social Network and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, I believe Zodiac is going to be the Fincher movie to be studied, remembered, and revered most highly. It proves that digital can be as cinematic as film and that long running times, lack of action, and information overload are just minutia when compared to the real goals of the film. Those goals are emotion, the visual language, and the power of cinema that we don’t often stop to appreciate.

More movies, less problems

• Illinoise is Broadway’s best new musical | review
• Challengers is a winner. Game, sex, match. | review and analysis
• Civil War is a thriller at war with itself | review

Hey! I’m Karl. You can find me on Twitter here. I’m also a Tomatometer-approved critic.

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT

💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

ADVERTISEMENT