By Ranny Ma

Gargoyle staff reporter


Posted Friday, March 9, 2007, The OG, arts

THE FILM “ZODIAC” is not your typical thriller. Few of the scenes contain high drama or intense action. If you're looking for the kind of crime story that makes you jump out of your seat, this isn't it.

Based on the true case of the “Zodiac Killer,” who murdered at least five people between December 1968 and October 1969, the film turns out to be a disappointment — long (158 minutes), tedious, and unsatisfying.

“Zodiac” is a movie about the process of trying to capture a criminal — a process as seen largely from a writer's point of view. And perhaps you can imagine that very little shooting or chasing occurs while this happens.

Robert Graysmith, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is an enthusiastic young political cartoonist who works for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Graysmith becomes interested in the case after the killer demands that cryptograms supposedly containing his identity be put on the front page of the Chronicle and two other newspapers. Eventually Graysmith's interest turns into near-obsession, and he goes on to write a bestseller about the search for the killer. (The movie, of course, is based on the book.)

Robert Downey Jr. plays Paul Avery, a crime reporter at the Chronicle who is also caught up in the mystery.

Inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong, played by Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards respectively, are both on the case. However, they need to go through the Chronicle for the evidence.

One of the two things that impressed me about this movie was Ruffalo's performance. He convincingly portrays a harried and overworked cop who still retains a wry sense of humor, which helps to make up — somewhat — for a dull plot.

The other thing that impressed me was the occasionally witty dialogue. But I guess if you have two hours worth of dialogue, then some of it must be interesting, right?

Probably half of the scenes should have been cut because they added nothing to the story. There are only a few moments that come close to startling or frightening the viewer, and nothing in the movie turns a run-of-the-mill mystery into a genuine thriller.

Quite honestly, there was no beginning, middle, or end. I was constantly looking at the time because I couldn't tell how the movie was going to wrap itself up.

The actual murder scenes only lead to further meaningless remarks by everyone. Since when do people ramble on for two hours while action scenes become almost unimportant in a crime story?

With all that said, the worst part about the movie was the ending. I think they ran out of money. Instead of a cathartic showdown (think “Dirty Harry,” in which the bad guy was loosely based on the Zodiac Killer), what you get is about a minute of text summarizing the last 15 years of developments in the case. Why did I see this movie again?

The director, David Fincher, attempts to create an epic criminal masterpiece but fails miserably because the middle is just a hodgepodge of excess dialogue. There is nothing at all to keep you interested. This is the same director who brought us a classic crime thriller in “Se7en” and a memorable blend of social satire and brutal action in “Fight Club.” What happened to make his new film so monotonous?

This question, unfortunately, seems to have no answer. “Zodiac” simply doesn't have any zest. It is lifeless and colorless, even if you think it is intended to be more of a psychological drama than a thriller.

Please, go spend your money and time elsewhere.

“Zodiac” is now playing at Beverly Cinema 18 (click here for times), and Savoy 16 (click here for times). Runtime: 158 minutes. Rated: R.

RELATED

— The film's official site