Zodiac

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. (18/11/2012)

A captivating mosaic of facts that lacks the limiting features of the thriller genre and literally redeems the viewer in one of the most mysterious cases of forensic history. The only thing I would criticize is the long runtime; otherwise I liked everything essential – the stylization, music, acting, conception of the characters. Zodiac is simply a very unconventional look at an attractive substance, which most directors would turn into a thrilling idyll with an ending, where the killer gets it in the chest and it’s over. Fortunately, Fincher stuck to the facts and created a documentary, a civil and somewhat of a retro spectacle that I personally truly enjoyed. If you are expecting something attractive in the style of Seven, you are better off not going to the movie theatre. (14/06/2007)

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)

More than two and a half hours of spellbinding precision filmmaking, from the flawless evocation of the atmosphere of the 1960s and 70s, for which I have a soft spot, to the inventively staged Zodiac murders, where Fincher, with one exception, avoids explicit violence (and yet gave me chills like I hadn’t felt in a long time), to the pleasure of watching great actors. And if I were a manufacturer of "drinks for a slim line" with a professional deformity, I would gladly exclaim: “And zero clichés!!!” Undoubtedly the most entertaining conversational film in recent years and a treasure for all those whose first priority is the story and only then the flashy tinsel, so typical of recent films. And certainly a disappointment for those who like crime movies with everything presented on a golden platter like in Columbo. Acting-wise, I was very surprised by the great Mark Ruffalo, but everyone is rocked by Jake Gyllenhaal, whose enthusiastic, headstrong character, driven by a desire to "I need to know who he is", is one of the most likeable in recent years for me. And I think the best audience marker for this non-mainstream and boldly narrative film for our times is the fact that after it was over, I had a terrible urge to read Graysmith's book and learn more about the phenomenon called the Zodiac Killer. Not since at least Stone's JFK has there been a film with an investigative theme this good. Bravo, Mr Fincher!!! PS: The comparisons with Se7en are stupid! Fincher has made a distinctive work, and he didn't set out to create some silly clone. (17/07/2007)

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. (04/02/2008)