Perhaps it's fitting that "Zodiac," David Fincher's account of the notorious serial killer who eluded California police for
more than two decades, should be as long and sprawling as the killer's career. The frequent subtitles indicating how much time has passed since the previous scene ("2 weeks later," "4 months later," "3 years later," etc.), combined with the film's actual running time (more than 2 1/2 hours), give us a real sense of the size and scope of the investigation. Perhaps it is also appropriate (and maybe even admirable) that we feel the same things the investigators do: excitement and curiosity at first, suspense about the killer's identity ... and then frustration over how much time is passing without any arrests being made. Fincher's adherence to the facts of the case (as they're presented in Robert Graysmith's 1986 book, anyway) means that the film must end as unsatisfactorily as the real story did. We do get some closure -- but it's in the "what happened next" onscreen titles after the movie is technically over. It's a terrible ending, both for the real story and the movie. Yet it's still a pretty watchable movie. Fincher's usual frenetic editing and showy camerawork are absent -- this movie looks nothing like "Fight Club" or "Panic Room" -- leaving him to prove his worth as a storyteller in more mainstream ways. And he does it, too, handling multiple protagonists and 20 years of history with smooth, energetic confidence. If they'd ever actually arrested the killer, "Zodiac" would be a near-perfect genre film.
To read the rest of this review, click on the relevant link below.