Ryan ChartrandThe problem with making movies that are based on true events is that you have a fairly rigid path to follow. In order to maintain credibility, there isn’t much room to deviate from that path. What a great movie does is make you hope for a different outcome, despite already knowing what will happen.
Such is the case with David Fincher’s (“Seven,” “Fight Club”) newest film, “Zodiac.” The movie follows a cast of characters involved in the investigation of the mysterious killer who terrorized the Bay Area during the late ’60s and early ’70s.
The primary focus of the film is San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith, who is played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Graysmith later penned the bestselling book on which the movie is based.
The film begins with the random murder of a couple in the North Bay. The killer later taunts police and various newspapers in the area while detailing his crimes and boasting of more to come in a series of cryptic messages and phone calls.
From there, the audience is dragged into the frenzy that dominated the Bay Area press for the better part of two decades.
Graysmith starts as an innocent bystander – he happens to be in an editorial meeting when the first Zodiac letter is passed around. The case will eventually consume him, prompting the aforementioned book.
The case becomes an obsession first for oddball Chronicle crime reporter Paul Avery, played brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr. (“Good Night and Good Luck,” “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”). When the Zodiac takes his act to San Francisco, inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) is drawn in.
As literally thousands of leads are exhausted, the case becomes a strain on everyone involved. Avery sinks deeper into a bottle, Toschi nearly loses his job and Graysmith suffers from a failed marriage due to his singular focus on the case.
As previously stated, it is difficult to stray, creatively or otherwise, from the given fact pattern; it makes the movie intriguing but can also stifle the pace. That said, the performances of the aforementioned trio are impressive.
Gyllenhaal continues to cement his place as the best of America’s young actors. He is almost loveably na’ve as Graysmith, the former Eagle Scout turned cartoonist (no joke). By the end of the film, he is hardened and on the downside of his marriage.
Downey Jr. is the scene- stealer in this one, he is as off beat and manic as Avery. It is sad to watch the reporter’s slow demise but it is indicative of the tension and failure that characterized a case that was shrouded in misinformation and failure.
Ruffalo is solid as always, although at times a little too stiff as the beleaguered detective in charge of catching the Zodiac. Eventually Ruffalo’s character becomes exhausted with the case, leaving Graysmith to go it alone, providing some precarious and thrilling situations for a cartoonist to be in.
Like most Fincher films, “Zodiac” is graphic and very raw. Fincher does an excellent job of showcasing San Francisco and the surrounding areas in the late ’60s and early ’70s.
Those who know nothing about the case will be enthralled instantly, as Fincher wastes no time jumping into the story. Even those who are familiar with the case will see something fresh, and more importantly, forget the inevitable climax.
There are a couple of minor problems with the film. “Zodiac” runs for 2 hours and 40 minutes, so plan on finding a comfortable place to watch it.
Also, you get the feeling that Fincher was as obsessed with the case as the characters he unveils. He seems intent on packing the movie with as much detail as possible.
There are some head scratching scenes that appear to have no purpose, other than to provide the same sense of confusion that those investigating the crime did.
Otherwise, Fincher presents an outstanding cast in a well-made film about one of the most intriguing murderers of this century. It may not be as taut as “Seven” or “The Game,” but it doesn’t need to be. The groundwork is laid and Fincher and company do an excellent job of fleshing out the final product.
Overall, the movie is aided by the available facts more than it is harmed by them. The fact that the case is still unsolved makes it all the more interesting. It’s definitely worth catching in theaters.
