Screen Scene “Zodiac”

“Zodiac”

Director David Fincher

Paramount Pictures

3 Paws Out Of 5

When a notorious killer announces his strangers-for-slaughter agenda, the least appropriate reaction is a giggle.

But with Robert Downey Jr. (“Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”) playing a smart-mouthed drunkard to Jake Gyllenhaal (“Brokeback Mountain”), a naively ambitious nobody, laughing only comes naturally.

Director David Fincher of “Fight Club” and “Se7en” brings the two ““ actors and mixed reactions ““ together in “Zodiac,” a film about the serial killer who terrorized Northern California in the 1960s and 1970s. The subject is grave, but Fincher lightens the mood with multiple bouts of comedic relief through cleverly realistic characters.

As reporter Paul Avery who covered the murders for the San Francisco Chronicle, Downey captures his real-life counterpart’s reckless investigative pursuit in a relatable and consequently comical way.

Though this is not the first film about the string of random murders and the subsequent haunting letters to the newspaper (“Dirty Harry’s” Scorpio is loosely based on Zodiac and Tom Hanson’s “The Zodiac Killer” debuted only two years after the first murders), it is the first to depict the story as true to life as possible.

Fincher informs the audience at the beginning that the film is based on actual case files, which is especially evident during the reenactments of the murders.

In one scene, the hooded and robed Zodiac threatens a couple at gunpoint. No thematic music plays in the background; no dramatic monologue ensues, though the victims are visibly shaken; no bloody multiple gun-shot wounds to the head ““ just controlled, efficient stabs to ensure a kill.

Yet, sans cinematic grandeur during the murders, the scene is still compelling. The uncolored and unedited details of the Zodiac case may seem as boring as sifting through all the case files, but in the film, the mundane bits of information infuse the story with reality and suspense.

In essence, “Zodiac” is the film version of The History Channel: It’s interesting and accurate but terribly time-consuming.

And three hours is a long time to be sitting uncomfortably at the edge of your seat.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *