Zodiac (2007)

Rating:
Director: David Fincher
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr.

Walking into the theater to see this story done by the guy who gave us the twisted “http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114369/,” the brilliant “Fight Club” and the abortive “Alien 3,” one has to be afraid that if “Zodiac” goes wrong, it’s going to go really, really wrong.

The real-life Zodiac case is a sprawling collection of mismatched facts, frustrating clues and unsolved puzzles. It sprawls over three decades, though the fevered and much-publicized flashpoints of the case covered only a few years. Filming an accurate version of the case (as opposed to running with some inspiration to craft a flashier genre classic) becomes a challenge of pacing. And while lurid serial killings always make for cheap Hollywood thrills, when surviving victims, family members of those murders and perhaps the killer himself are still alive, a filmmaker who relished the viscera the way Fincher did in “Seven” would be disgustingly irresponsible.

So the director bit off no small challenge in adapting Robert Graysmith’s obsessively researched book on the still-unsolved murder spree. Fortunately, he handles both the epic scope of the information at hand, and the need for a little real-world sensitivity, with a perfectly assured hand. However, the movie overall is not entirely successful. It lacks basic story focus. In the end, it closes in on Graysmith, mostly, and one San Francisco cop, but you go a long way through this two-and-a-half-hour exercise wondering who this movie is really about.

The question that gets asked when you voice a mixed review like this is, “Is it worth ten bucks?” The answer: If you like police procedurals, yes. If you would like to see a really good cast, marshaled by a very smooth director, act out a documentary on the circumstances of the Zodiac case, this is your movie. If you want to, you know, have a character to identify with and worry about the screaming of the lambs, can you still hear them, Clairse, then, no, this movie is unsatisfying.

Among Fincher’s successes, besides keeping the story on an even keel, is a seamless directorial style that doesn’t try to wow the audience with style, preferring to let the story unfold. And with a cast like this, that’s a good choice. That Robert Downey Jr. can play archly sarcastic, substance-fueled dissipation is no surprise, nor is ER’s Anthony Edwards as a by-the-book cop. But Gyllenhaal’s nosey, ultimately obsessed Chronicle cartoonist-cum-crime-author, and Mark Ruffalo’s downbeat, dedicated S.F. detective are also really good. John Carroll Lynch hits just the right note of creepiness as Graysmith’s preferred Zodiac suspect, though Roger Rabbit voice Charlie Fleischer out-weirds him by far in a sequence designed only to spook the audience by showing how paranoid and disturbing Graysmith’s world becomes.

Tension, in general, is a problem when it’s widely known that the eponymous killer was never caught — hard to provide a satisfying resolution. But the script has Gyllenhaal lay out his own definition of the resolution his driven character seeks, and even knowing that the Zodiac case remains unsolved, it’s something he might be able to achieve before the credits roll.

[Digressive memo to true-crime fans: The movie pushes the theory in Robert Graysmith’s book. And while it’s a heavily researched theory that is surely among the most plausible, if not the most plausible, in this case, it’s not the only one. The Wikipedia article on the Zodiac Killer is being revised every 20 seconds these days, and someone seems to have deleted an entire section listing “prime suspects.” This older version, however, includes an informative look at the strongest and the craziest theories.]

An interesting nod to the potential pitfalls of filming this killer’s story is hidden toward the end of the film. Throughout the movie, sections of the Zodiac’s taunting, semi-literate letters are read. One line, in particular, sticks in the mind: “I’m waiting for a good movie about me.” That brings up the point that, if this monster is still out there, a film celebrating his deeds would be in poor taste. Fortunately, while this well-made movie lacks certain dramatic cohesion, it manages to tell the fascinating true story without sensationalism, and without lionizing its demented villain.