Full Movie Reviews
Rating of
4/4
A well-documented suspense thriller.
memento_mori - wrote on 07/14/2013
I like Jake Gyllenhaal's character in this movie. He is under appreciated at his job, and when he starts to investigate and build his own theories on the Zodiac killer, it affects his personal life and family as well.
The performances are almost Oscar-worthy, Mark Rufallo being the stand-out. They are so distinguished and every actor adds a personality to his character. They feel authentic, like real people that have something to lose. Perfect casting, perfect acting.
The script shows you just enough of everything. It doesn't use date-jumping (going from one year to the other) to its advantage, because it documents only what we need to see, while still leaving room for character development.
David Fincher has proven himself to be an amazing director, and I honestly think this is one …
Rating of
2.5/4
"Zodiac" by Yojimbo
Yojimbo - wrote on 01/18/2012
Telling the story of a serial killer who terrorized the San Francisco bay area in the late 60s and early 70s,the narrative switches between the frustrated detectives that seem to hit a dead end every time they uncover a promising suspect and the obsessive-compulsive journalist who cannot allow himself to let the murders remain unsolved. It looks fantastic, Fincher bringing his trademark brooding atmosphere to a frighteningly cold blooded series of crimes (although for me the most disturbing murder scene actually took place in broad daylight) and the top notch cast all deliver. Those who need their stories to be tied up at the end in a nice big bow may not appreciate the open-endedness of the conclusion, but it is based on a true story, so what're you gonna do? It's perhaps lacking the …
Rating of
3/4
Zodiac review
Daniel Corleone - wrote on 08/29/2011
Three men want to search who the serial killer is in 1969 onwards. Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) a Chronicle crime reporter, a cartoonist named Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) and SFPD Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo). Each character tries to find the pieces needed to resolve one of the most heinous crimes committed in that era. The cinematography was grandiose, script was cleverly executed and acting superb. Despite the length, each scene was essential in uncovering the conclusion. Film manages some comedic scenes despite its nature of the dark premise. In the words of one of the protagonists - Robert Graysmith - "Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true." A film that shows persistence in finding the truth, this thriller delivers. Zodiac is one of the …
Rating of
3/4
Good sign
Bribaba - wrote on 05/03/2011
I lived in San Francisco for much of the period covered by this film (not guilty!) and was very impressed with the way the city was simulated 70s style. The look of the film - warm shadows, tight focus - also reflected the movies from that 'golden age of cinema'.
After a strong start I thought the story lost its way in the second half, just as the cops lost theirs as they traipsed down blind alleys. Another problem for me was Jake Gyllenhaal's mannered, and at times hammy performance. Seeing him with Chloe Sevigny made the film suddenly feel small, like an indie movie. All the turns were pretty low key, and so were at least in keeping with the film's pace if not actuality. Nice to see 'Dirty' Harry Callaghan himself getting a namecheck along the way, I suspect that he was closer to …
Rating of
3/4
Zodiac
Franz Patrick - wrote on 12/24/2007
A lot of casual movie-goers were disappointed with this movie because they expected more jolt-inducing scenes that remain in their spine for some time. Meanwhile, critics loved its realism and labyrinth-like mystery. I wasn't disappointed with this film nor did I love it as much as the professional film critics. I simply liked it for the following reasons: the two-and-a-half hour span of this movie symbolizes the grueling, long-term challenges the real-life detectives went through, Jake Gyllenhaal's mature performance about a man's journey in the rabbit hole, and the overall languid tone of this film. This is comparable to "Breach" because both were inspired by true events and both have that love-it-or-hate-it attitude. I don't know about you, but I need smart thrillers like this once in …
Rating of
2.5/4
ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble
ScottyWasANitemare - wrote on 11/16/2007
Yes, yes, and yes it is way too long.
This movie is very good for the first hour and a half or so, especially if you are unfamiliar with the Zodiac case. I read the Robert Graysmith book years ago, and knew most of what was to come, but it kept my interest and was well acted.
*****Spoiler Alert******************** stop if you have not seen this film!
But come on. We know he was never caught, so the last, I don't know... hour... seem self-serving and boring as hell.
Hello, just because it seems to be the in-thing these days to have people pissing their pants in the theater waiting for an ending, does not mean every movie has to employ this long-winded tactic.
Especially if many people already know that there won't be any crazy Hollywood ending.
Still, worth a …
Rating of
1.5/4
Long, longer, and longer still
patjohnson76 - wrote on 10/13/2007
I was a little worried when I just got this through NetFlix and the envelope said the movie was 2 hours and 40 minutes long because that's a long time for a movie. And that's it's biggest problem. It goes on a LONG time.
The movie tries to be several things: an investigation into the Zodiac killer, how the investigation affects several people, some about the killings themselves, and at times it all proves to be a little too much. In fact, Gyllenhaal's (the "star" of the film) purpose isn't really clear until the hour and forty-five minute mark. Until then I had no idea WHY he was even in the movie. Then he becomes obsessed with the investigation, but we're never told why.
Robert Downey Jr. shows up in his typical character mode: smart ass remarks and nervous mannerisms. …
Rating of
3/4
Zodiac Kills!
Alex - wrote on 03/23/2007
David Fincher, known for his visual style, graphic violence, special effects, and psychological thrillers, does an excellent job in directing the first great movie of the year.
The audience is sucked into the movie by a series of killings that are violent and random. By the third act, the killing stops and we are left with a "Law and Order" type mystery in a "who done it" (although much better told and acted than any TV Show could ever do). Gyellenhaul does a good job playing Graysmith, the obsessed cartoonist, and Downey Jr. is perfect in his role of the editorial editor for the S.F. Chronicle. That said, the acting is great.
The thing I was most disappointed in was Fincher. Having directed 2 of what I think are the best movies of all time, this movie was completely not there. …
Rating of
3.5/4
Zodiac is a modern day Hitchcock film
Josh C - wrote on 03/17/2007
Keeping with Hitchcock's style of building suspense and horror slowly while not showing all the blood and gore worked very well for David Fincher. The result is a movie that keeps you engaged and lets you use your imagination as to how and why the Zodiac kills.
The movie, which is obviously based around a true story, takes place over 20 years though most of the movie's events take place in a span of just seven years. Though the movie covered a huge span of events and very few killings it was surprisingly intense because of good acting on the parts of Gyllenhaal and Downy Jr. Also, the directing was good enough to not loose any of the intensity and build up by jumping from one time to another, sometimes over four years pass in one scene!
The movie followed the lives of a reporter, …
