March 22, 2007

'Zodiac' is edge-of-the-seat thriller from start to finish
Jeremy Kopp
koppj@marietta.edu

David Fincher's first serial killer outing, `Seven,' sensationalized the grotesque and perverse ways the killer brutalized his victims, and that's what made it so effective; it was less about the heroes than the demon they were up against. It was interesting to me, then, that his latest film, `Zodiac,' is instead about the heroes up against their inner-demons.

Based on the true story about the serial killer who dubbed himself `Zodiac' in 1969 and continued murdering all-throughout the seventies, we witness the efforts of the San Francisco Chronicle's political cartoonist, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), the paper's cockiest - and drunkest - journalist, Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.), and the smooth homicide detective, Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), as they struggle to bring the madman down.

Graysmith is shifty, moody, and awkward; he sits quietly hunched at his desk, keeping to himself as he intensely focused on the cartoon he's scribbling. His involvement with the case begins because of his fascination with puzzles, as the Zodiac begins taunting San Francisco with encrypted, supposed-confessions he sends to the Chronicle. Avery, on the other hand, wants to make headlines, so he and Graysmith become sort-of partners, and we watch them descend into darkness together.

The result of Avery's over-exposure of the Zodiac, including making mistakes like labeling him “a latent homosexual,” caused Avery to the hit the bottle more heavily as the case progressed. But Graysmith kept focused, researching in ancient libraries and interviewing sketchy people in their crummy homes for anything he felt would get him one step-closer to the killer.

He eventually finds Toschi, who gave up on the case long after the Zodiac lost his high profile, but who still felt just as compelled to catch him. So against his better judgement, he subtly slips Graysmith hush-hush tips to aid him in his quest.

Fincher was a child living in San Fran when the Zodiac was on the prowl, so it's a very personal film for him, no doubt. He not only understands the seventies - how these men dressed and talked and walked (a walk that was certainly more cocksure in a time before people even knew what a “serial killer” was) - but also what would drive men like these mad; what would fascinate them about a killer-phantom keeping an entire city in fear.

And he's good at keeping us scared, too. It's the fog creeping on the ground and darkly lit dives where these men frequent and the desolate areas where the victims are murdered and all of the little subtleties that create a dark and spooky atmosphere. Graysmith enters a suspect's home and we hear the creaks and groans and we see the shadows that Graysmith sees that send chills down both his and our spines.

I would never have guessed that 2-hour-and-40-minute-dialogue-driven film could have kept us on the edge of our seats for so long. But the scariest thing about `Zodiac' is it's ending: here's a movie about a man attempting to solve a case that has no closure: he lost his family and his job - basically, his life - but was incapable of catching the demon that caused the demons within him (4 stars).