Movie Review: Zodiac

David Fincher, who made his name with the story of a serial killer working his way through the seven deadly sins, now regales us with the true crime story of the Zodiac killer who terrorized San Francisco in the late '60s and early '70s. Well, really it's the story of the men, both police and journalists, who became obsessed with the Zodiac killer and the toll it took on their careers and lives. (And it's easy to get hooked. I visited one of the main clearinghouses of information on the Zodiac this morning and lost track of time, and then had to race to get ready for work.)

In summer 1969, the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle receive an anonymous letter from someone claiming responsibility for three recent murders (one victim survived), along with a cypher the author demands be published. Investigative reporter Paul Avery and cartoonist Robert Graysmith (on whose books the film is based) start looking into the Zodiac. For Avery, this will lead to the downfall of his career, as his obsession leads to alcoholism and paranoia, and he ultimately runs away. For Graysmith, it will obviously lead to fame and fortune through his books and this film, but will cost him a marriage.

The newspaper reports the letter to the police and Inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong are assigned to the case. Armstrong will eventually burn out on the case. Toschi will get caught up in it to the end, despite it derailing his career when he is accused of writing some of the Zodiac letters himself. After that he tries desperately to put the case behind him, but Graysmith continues hounding him for information and direction.

The Zodiac killer has never been identified. The film posits one possible solution, apparently the favorite of many: Arthur Leigh Allen. No other suspect is even shown in the film. Given that the film is based on Graysmith's book rather than attempting to be an objective view of the case, this is not surprising. Fincher plays fair, though, and points out the flaws in the theory, little things like DNA.

Overall, I have to say I was disappointed. After such seminal works as Se7en and Fight Club, and the lesser but still entertaining Panic Room, this one is rather pedestrian. Fincher assembles a strong cast, and none disappoint with their performances. But the film just plods along with no energy or momentum. Part of the problem is that the story keeps jumping time frames, especially in the first half. And after all is said and done, the movie comes out and says, "We don't know who did it."

And then there are strange developments. For the first cypher, we get a quick scene of intelligence operatives in the Navy working to decode the thing, but then we find that the code is broken by some couple in their pajamas (early bloggers?). And it's not even a complicated code, but Navy intelligence couldn't crack it? Zodiac sent a second cypher that no one has ever solved. Late in the film, Graysmith is shown in a TV interview after he did so. But we never hear what the solution was. Given that in reality it's never been solved, that's not too surprising. But then why put that scene in?

But the weirdest one comes late in the film. Based on some anonymous tips and some investigation, Graysmith is convinced some guy named Rick Marshall is the Zodiac who was a film projectionist. One of the pieces of evidence for Marshall is that his handwriting is the closest match they've had to the Zodiac's handwriting. Graysmith goes to visit the man who owned the theater where Marshall worked. There, the owner identifies the handwriting as his own, and not Marshall's. Graysmith suddenly gets very scared, thinking the owner is the killer, and runs out. Two scenes later he's interviewing the sister of one of the victims and is insistent that Marshall is the Zodiac. At this point, why would he believe that? Doesn't he remember what he learned the night before?

Well acted, but the movie isn't worth the time. Too bad because the subject matter seems quite interesting.