[Zodiac]
Plot:Based on the Robert Graysmith books about the real life notorious Zodiac, a serial killer who terrorized San Francisco with a string of seemingly random murders during the 1960s and 1970s.
Cast:
Jake Gyllenhaal,
Mark Ruffalo,
Anthony Edwards,
Robert Downey Jr.,
Brian Cox,
John Carroll Lynch,
Richmond Arquette,
Bob Stephenson,
John Lacy,
Chloë Sevigny,
Ed Setrakian,
John Getz,
John Terry,
Candy Clark,
Elias Koteas.
My Thoughts: Huh?? Wha???
Review:The standard response when one awakes from a long slumber.....which is exactly what David Fincher's "Zodiac" was....a long slumber. Now I know movies like this are supposed to be revered bbased on the performances but even Gyllenhaal, Downey Jr., and Ruffalo couldn't sve this picture. As most people already know, "Zodiac" is based on the Robert Graysmith novels about the real life serial killer who took many victims during his reign of terror in the 60's and 70's in Southern California. "Zodiac" starts off with some promise, as a young couple is brutally murdered in their car right at the very beginning of the picture. But it goes downhill little by little after that. What manages to keep the film afloat during the first half is the Zodiac killer himself. The first half of the picture is when he strikes and sends ominous coded letters to the press demanding some coverage in exchange for him holding off on taking more victims. But soon the picture breaks down into typical serial killer/thriller mode...and when that happens, the performances, which usually keep things together in the pictures slowest parts, are supposed to take center stage. Instead, they only serve to hurt the picture. Gyllenhaal as Robert Graysmith, a newpaper editor just comes across as such an uninteresting character, and Robert Downey Jr. as his co-worker Paul Avery is about as interesting of a character as this picture puts out there. The problem is, he doesn't get enough screentime to build on his character really. Mark Ruffalo meanwhile as Inspector William Armstrong, is the red herring in the film, when it comes to the Zodiac killer. Not sure why James Vanderbilt who wrote the screenplay tries so hard to make the audience believe he might be the killer, seeing as how there are so many other better characters to choose from but I digress. The Zodiac killer is truly the heart of this picture, when he speaks in those scenes where he's calling in to threaten his next crime, or his letters are being read...the movie picks up a few notches. But once he fades back into obscurity, so does the movies entertainment value. I am sure David Fincher thought assembling a cast with as much talent as Ruffalo, Gyllenhaal, and Downey Jr. have was a good idea...but if there's one thing I've learned from films of every genre, it's that a cast of talented actors don't always mesh together that well. Which is exactly what happened in "Zodiac". "Zodiac" does provide a few chills here and there, but as I've stated before, they're only when the Zodiac strikes, sends one of his infamous letters, or has a fresh victim in his clutches. One could say this film was built too much around the Zodiac killer. It might sound ridiculous to say that, but without him on screen in some capacity, the picture just crumbles as if it's a bridge lacking it's strongest support beam. I really thought this movie would be one of David Fincher's best films but boy was I wrong. This was a truly painful movie to sit through, boring..uninteresting, you name it. And Zodiac killer or not, Vanderbilt's script really lacked any fire or flare to it. The dialogue was flat, and attempts at painting a few characters as red herrings for the real zodiac killer didn't pan out for the most part. Maybe it was because this film was set in the 60's and 70's, and so the characters were written to fit that time period. Either way, to be honest...."Zodiac" could've been set in the year 2007...and quite frankly to me, it still would've been a movie who's only source of life and entertainment was derived from it's mysterious and eccentric villain.
Positives:The scenes involving the Zodiac were well done, very ominous, mysterious, and chilling...they basically had the intended effect.
Negatives:A terrible script, bad dialogue, boring characters, and below average performances. Not to mention an overall lack of entertainment value.
Overall:Wait for dvd, unless you feel like spending 10 bucks for a 2 hour+ nap in a dark movie theater.
(
Talk about it in the Forums!)
(
Back to the main page)
