07 03 03 zodiac 2007

07-03-03 Zodiac (2007)

Seen: March 2, 2007

Format: Theater

Rating: 6

I hadn't been to the theater in a while, so I took off a bit early on

a Friday to catch a film.

I decided on Zodiac primarily because I've enjoyed Fincher's films in

the past, the cast looked great and the material intriguing. I pretty

much got what I paid for at the matinee price.

This film is a casting director's dream. I mean, when's the last time

you saw Candy Clark? There's talent aplenty here, and the performances

are generally spot on. Downey in particular is excellent. Ruffalo

disappears into his character. Chloe Sevigny is a good, though a bit

under-utilized and Gyllenhaal does a fine job. And those are only a

few; Philip Baker Hall, Brian Cox, Dermot Mulroney, the list goes on.

Fincher is a stylish director and this outing is no different. The set

design and dressing is simply amazing. Having grown up in the very

late 60s and 70s, the details of the set dressing struck deep chords

and transported me back to that time. The camera moves, shot choices,

lighting; it all was technically excellent. Beyond that, it wasn't

obtrusive and moved the story. The editing was smooth and solid and

rarely got frenetic.

At this point, I may seem to be providing faint praise; and here comes

the criticism.

For me, as well crafted as it is, Zodiac fails in a few areas. The

film is long, and justifiably so, as it spans 20+ years. But the

characters' transitions are no where near as smooth as the details

embedded in the sets they inhabit.

Gyllenhaal's Graysmith seems a bit disjoint. His transition from

interested party to obsessed investigator lacks continuity. The

disintegration of his marriage seems sudden and bit unfounded. Scenes

intended to show the mounting tension seem to be gratuitous

afterthoughts. I have a hard time believing his transition and really

feeling the depth of his obsession, especially given the decades he

maintains it. I believe that this is more a failure of the script than

the performance.

In contrast, the transition of Ruffalo's Toschi is more consistent,

subtle and ultimately believable.

My second issue with the film is its distinct lack of menace. I keep

wanting to compare this film to Spike Lee's "Summer of Sam". I wanted

Zodiac to portray that underlying sense of fear that permeated Lee's

film. If anything, the Zodiac killer was more visible and more

flagrant than the Son of Sam, but Zodiac doesn't maintain that

underlying sense of fear and anticipation. This may be partly due to

the facts of the case. The Zodiac case lingered over twenty years,

with large stretches of time where he had no visibility. The case

dragged on with little or no real progress for years at a time.

Revelations were few, small and far between. These factors combine to

turn what begins as a Thriller into a long and grinding Mystery. While

the characters' personal evolutions help temper some of this malaise,

ultimately the whole affair grinds to an expected, but ungratifying

conclusion.

I actually did enjoy this film, but ultimately for the accuracy of its

craft, not its ability to engage and enthrall me for 158 minutes.

The Good: All-Star cast. Some amazing performances. Visually

appealing.

The Bad: Lacks any real sense of menace.

The Ugly: The murder scenes are personal, chaotic and brutal.