Zodiac

A fascinating deconstruction of a procedural detective investigation that manipulates with the expectations of the viewer in the same way the “elusive” killer plays with the characters. Fincher is again very impersonal, using the heroes like moving filters of information that shift the attention of the viewer whenever there is some clear progress, only to negate it a moment later and subject them to further filtering. As with all his other films, in Zodiac Fincher does not dwell on redundant scenes to generate atmosphere (perhaps only when they follow the taxi, which represents the overall detachment), but drops one morsel of information after another and confidently alternates the chronological space-time, but does it in a spirit of continuity so, despite omitting those redundant scenes and thanks to the clarifying titles, we always know who is acting, why and where (usually speaking). The first act takes place largely in a newsroom and is more or less focused on a killer who provides limited clues, but it gradually goes on to alternate between the investigators Toschi and Graysmith, who drastically narrow the circle of suspects, repeatedly giving the impression that they are about to catch the perpetrator, while the viewer becomes concerned about the case-obsessed characters who receive personal letters or anonymous calls from Zodiac. By the end, the only investigator remaining is caricaturist and innocent boy-scout Graysmith, whose obsession has become almost paranoia, which the viewer also feels thanks to the growing frustration and the constant rewrite of the evidence, therefore perfectly covering Fincher’s depressive clash of good vs evil and increasing the tension, culminating in the scene in the cellar, where you can hardly catch your breath (because the suspect can now be basically anyone). What’s more, the ending doesn’t release the viewer, it leaves them with more questions than answers, something both the viewer and the characters have been struggling with throughout the story. Zodiac is an uncompromising alternative to the detective genre that refuses to provide satisfaction and whose antagonist inflicts blows not only to his victims, but also to the system as a whole and to everyone moving within it who watches the news, reads newspapers and listens to the radio (three media that are an important element of communication). A masterfully directed and acted two and a half hour long delight for cinephiles. 95% (24/03/2020)

Not nearly as progressive and daring as one would expect from the David Fincher. After several visually brilliant downers, he puts us to sleep in a perfectly balanced and “cinematic” film about a mass murderer, where there are very few murders, but a lot of talking, and just the right amount of atmosphere. The plot is linear and not at all complicated, which is truly a miracle, because with similarly executed films, you usually lose track of the names appearing on the screen after just a few minutes due to the director’s incompetence. But here it's different, everything is clear, we know what is happening, we know how it's happening, we just don't know who the real killer is. Several scenes are expertly escalated and fantastically performed, but several shots are like an eyesore (incredibly obvious and awkwardly styled digital shots of the city, inappropriate to the atmosphere of the 1970s). And so the film essentially just mumbles, and the viewer goes on their way. It's a nice watch, but too long and not dynamic enough. It certainly can't be considered a textbook film. (05/02/2008)

I tip my hat. David Fincher proves once again that he is one of the best. I haven't seen such an atmospheric crime detective story since Se7en. Great directing, excellent acting and an outstanding screenplay make Zodiac one of the best films of the year. An EXCELLENT soundtrack, by the way. And I'm not huge a fan of '70s music. (18/07/2007)

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

Fincher is simply good, and his version of the investigation of the legendary murder series in the American West, whose perpetrator yearned for fame and manipulated the media, has undeniable tension, a long runtime, a good pace, and I hardly find any weaknesses to criticize Fincher for. For me, Zodiac holds a higher place than the artificial cult thriller Seven. Perhaps only due to the enormous amount of facts, evidence, characters, and witness statements that Fincher tried to fit into his film, making it difficult for the viewer to orient themselves. In the end, I am inclined to give it only 4 stars. Most importantly, Fincher shows a clear distinction between the fictional world of crime stories and detective tales and the grim reality where investigators are confronted with poor resources, incompetence of superiors, stupidity, and the sensationalism of many pseudo-witnesses. On the other hand, they are required to irrefutably prove the guilt of a suspect based on evidence, so that the jury cannot acquit them. Overall impression: 85%. By the way, in two scenes where he deviates from the documentary style toward thriller tension, the director demonstrates his expertise. The scene with the mother in the car on the night highway and, above all, the visit to the old projectionist and the joint trip to the underground spaces of the house have genuine horror tension and atmosphere. (19/11/2012)