Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler, Stronger) makes every movie he is in better than it would otherwise be, regardless of it it’s a great movie, a terrible movie, or anything in between. Director David Fincher (Se7en, The Social Network) doesn’t make bad films. With Gyllenhaal and Fincher together, along with an ensemble that includes Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man 3, Natural Born Killers), Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher, Spotlight), Anthony Edwards (Top Gun, NBC’s ER), Dermot Mulroney (My Best Friend’s Wedding, Young Guns), Brian Cox, (The Ring, HBO’s Succession), and John Carroll Lynch (The Trial of the Chicago 7, Jackie), Zodiac was bound for success. While the film connected on all fronts, it felt like it left something to be desired, though this would undoubtedly be true for anyone familiar with the story.
Zodiac left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth because it lacked a satisfactory conclusion. In fictional tales, ambiguous endings can more easily be accepted and, often, even more appreciated. In films based on true stories, specifically ones dealing with a serial killer on the loose, we want our overarching story wrapped up nicely and tightly, more often than not, with the antagonist either killed or behind bars. I’m not worried about spoiling too much with a story over 50 years old at the time of this writing. The Zodiac Killer is the pseudonym for the unidentified serial killer who murdered at least five (possibly many more) people in Northern California during the late 1960s. The case of The Zodiac Killer is, to many, the most recognized unsolved murder case in United States history. Wild conspiracy theories about who this killer was and what crimes he was responsible for exist to this day. Fincher’s story takes us through an extensive timeline from the killer first struck through the day the case grew cold.
By its 2007 release, Fincher had undoubtedly come to his own as a film director. Carrying credits of soon-to-be cult classics Alien 3, The Game, Se7en, Fight Club, and Panic Room, Fincher had set the bar high for himself with critics and audiences. Though it had been five years since his last movie, Fincher did not follow the pattern of fictional suspense that had defined his career. Instead, he ventured into the world of true crime, bringing with him his largest film budget to date, with grandiose plans, I’m sure, of far surpassing the $100 million revenue benchmark loosely used to define a movie as a blockbuster of the early 2000s.
Zodiac feels like the same cat-and-mouse game that Fincher established with Se7en and, to a lesser extent, The Game. Zodiac is filmed in a similar style, has uniquely defined characters, and keeps us equally glued to the edge of our seats. Ultimately, we miss the payoff in Zodiac that each of Fincher’s five previous films provided. It’s not the fault of Fincher, his cast, or anyone involved with the film’s production. However, when you have these other instant classics with these huge payoffs, there’s naturally bound to be a letdown, even when a different kind of expectation is heading into the movie.
Despite striking a chord with critics (90%) and audiences (77%), Zodiac earned just $33 million domestically, just half its budget. Its 157-minute runtime did it no favors. However, what can’t be dismissed and what could have kept fans from the theaters was the understanding that they knew the film’s conclusion might leave them with an unsatisfactory feeling. That was the deciding factor that kept me from seeing it in the theater and what kept me, rightly or wrongfully, from rating this movie a little higher. I wanted a conclusion of a true story that would never be provided.
Plot 8/10
Character Development 8/10
Character Chemistry 7.5/10
Acting 7.5/10
Screenplay 8/10
Directing 8.5/10
Cinematography 9/10
Sound 7.5/10
Hook and Reel 8.5/10
Universal Relevance 10/10
82.5%
Movies You Might Like If You Liked This Movie
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Breach
- Se7en
- The Social Network
- Prisoners