Review written by Nathan Vass
Zodiac is David Fincher''s masterpiece. It stands as a monolith, the shadow of which
all other serial killer films cower under. Much like Oliver Stone''s epic JFK negated the need for anyone to make any more Kennedy assassination movies, Zodiac is the last word on the crime investigation picture. The two films share other similarities- both are huge, sprawling films that cover vast amounts of intensely detailed material. Both run three hours in length and follow an investigative storyline. Although they differ greatly in tone, the two films are both exquisitely made works by artists at the height of their powers. Zodiac illuminates the realities of criminal investigation with such realism that it is simply no longer possible to take conventional thrillers and shows like CSI seriously. Fincher depicts police work for what it is- a long, slow, arduous, and painstaking process that can easily drive someone insane.
The film follows the search for the notorious Zodiac killer, who terrorized 1970s San Francisco. He was never found, and was arguably the first killer to gain notoriety by way of media exposure- a phenomenon we are all far too familiar with today. The story begins in 1958, near a drive-in, where a young couple in search of privacy has parked their car. It is night, and they are isolated and alone. Since we know the subject matter of the film, and have all seen thrillers before, we know what is about to happen. It''s a testament to Fincher''s directorial abilities that the murder which follows is genuinely frightening. His direction throughout is much more muted than his previous works, but his touch remains unmistakable. The compositions are effective and only as bright as they have to be, and the color palette is a muted mix of beiges, greens, browns, and blacks. Much like the work of Stanley Kubrick, watching a Fincher film is always a riveting experience; both are perfectionists of the highest order. Fincher''s famous attention to detail is very apparent here. He reportedly insisted on 15 takes of a shot of Mark Ruffalo handling some photos in a manila folder; later on in the production, he did 30-odd takes of Ruffalo walking down a hallway. Knowing that everyhitng in the frame, down to the smallest detail, is intended precisely as shown, makes watching the film doubly fascinating. As with his other work, the atmosphere is dark and brooding, and the tension is always present, sometimes building to unbearable levels- believe me, you will not want to drive home on any country roads after seeing this movie. Another scene in a basement is orchestrated with such tightly wound precision that the audience breathed a very audible collective sigh of relief when it was over.
Much of the film, however, is dialogue. This is more of a docudrama than a thriller, but it remains tremendously interesting for its entire runtime. Part of the reason for this is that we- movie audiences, that is- are unaccustomed to seeing the inner workings of the investigative process. This is a world far removed from the glamorous high-tech thrillers of today. Much like Traffic and City of God, it''s fascinating simply on the level of learning how these hidden worlds function. The film doesn''t skimp on showing the complexities of what actually happens during a criminal investigation- the various people involved, the lines of communication that are opened and closed, and most importantly, how investigating such morbid affairs ruins the lives of those involved.