Zodiac

It’s long, but not long-winded. There are conversations, but it’s not chatty. Fincher is a genius at letting actors stand in front of the camera for two and a half hours and talk about a single subject. However, without a single directorial excess, with only the stylish atmosphere of the 1960s - 1980s span and a very austere Zodiac rampage, the film keeps a steady pace throughout the runtime, and the viewer eventually gets the feeling that the biggest action consists of copying ciphered letters or writing Graysmith's book. Given his previous work, this is a 180° turn, and yet it proves all the more that Fincher's range of skills still offers (especially in the future) many pleasant surprises for the audience. (21/07/2007)

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)

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)

Fincher is a master of atmosphere, no doubt about it. I enjoyed Zodiac exactly the way I was supposed to... But if I hadn't read the book, a lot of things would probably have remained a mystery to me, and the film might have seemed too muddled and maybe even boring, for all I know. Fortunately, I did read it. Five stars for a perfect transfer from paper to filmstrip. (05/06/2010)